Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Iowa State University Capstones, Theses andDissertations
2001
Personality, other dispositional variables, andhuman adaptabilityLori Dawn LindleyIowa State University
Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd
Part of the Personality and Social Contexts Commons
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State UniversityDigital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State UniversityDigital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Recommended CitationLindley, Lori Dawn, "Personality, other dispositional variables, and human adaptability " (2001). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations.1059.https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/1059
INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMl films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMl a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMl directly to order.
ProQuest Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
.®
Personality, other dispositional variables, and human adaptability
by
Lori Dawn Lindley
A dissertation submitted to the graduate faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Major: Psychology (Counseling Psychology)
Major Professor: Fred H. Borgen
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa
2001
UMl Number: 3016724
®
UMl UMl Microform 3016724
Copyright 2001 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
1
Personality, other dispositional variables, and human adaptability
Lori Dawn Lindley
Major Professor: Fred H. Borgen Iowa State University
The relationships among several variables that have been demonstrated to relate to
one another and to positive human functioning were examined. The variables included in the
study are Extraversion, Neuroticism, positive and negative affect, self-efficacy, self-esteem,
optimism, locus of control, and emotional intelligence. The primary goals of the study were
to determine whether an underlying element of adaptability could explain the previously
reported overlap among these constructs, to examine the predictive ability of these constructs
with regard to academic success, and to engage in exploratory investigation of the construct
of emotional intelligence. Participants were 316 undergraduate students (211 female, 105
male). A factor analysis was conducted using all the variables, including several that were
included for purposes of disconfirmation. The variables predicted to be related to
adaptability (listed above) loaded on the first two factors, labeled Reflective Adaptability and
Agentic Adaptability. Other variables not expected to be related to adaptability loaded on the
remaining three factors. In addition, six detailed hypotheses were formulated based on
previous findings and theoretical principles. Most hypotheses were supported, and most
expected relationships were found. In general, the conceptualization of an underlying
element of adaptability was supported, because of the factor analytic results and because
variables expected to be included in this construct were found to have much stronger
relationships with one another than they did with variables that were not expected to be
included in the construct of adaptability (e.g., Holland theme self-efficacy). Nevertheless,
2
there was also support for the conceptualization of variables included in the study as distinct
constructs that are independent from one another. Findings related to emotional intelligence
suggest the importance of further investigation using alternate measures of the construct.
Few variables in the study were found to predict GPA or ACT scores; Investigative self-
efficacy was a notable exception.
Il
Graduate College Iowa State University
This is to certify that the Doctoral dissertation of
Lori Dawn Lindley
has met the dissertation requirements of Iowa State University
Major Prof or
For the M r Program
Signature was redacted for privacy.
Signature was redacted for privacy.
Signature was redacted for privacy.
iii
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
APPEND DC: MEASURES
REFERENCES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
50
58
91
106
111
1
INTRODUCTION
A wide variety of individual difference and personality variables have been shown to
have an impact on an even broader range of aspects of human functioning. To cite just a few
examples, Extraversion is related to job success and satisfaction (Tokar & Subich, 1997),
positive affect predicts the quality of people's social interactions (Berry & Hansen, 1996),
and locus of control is related to psychological health in people with arthritis (Schiaffino &
Revenson, 1992). Furthermore, many of these characteristics of functional individuals have
been shown to relate to one another. Substantial correlations have been observed between
self-efficacy, self-esteem, locus of control, and emotional stability (Judge, Erez, & Bono,
1998). Self-efficacy relates positively to Extraversion and negatively to Neuroticism
(Thorns, Moore, & Scott, 1996), and self-esteem relates positively with positive affect and
negatively with negative affect (Brown & Button, 1995).
Not surprisingly, the validity and distinguishability of many of these traits has been
called into question. Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997) suggested that positive affect may be
synonymous with life satisfaction or self-esteem. Optimism has been criticized for lacking
discriminant validity with Neuroticism, locus of control, self-efficacy (Judge et al., 1997),
Extraversion, positive affect (Schwarzer, 1994), and self-esteem (Cozzarelli, 1993). The
strong and abundant relationships among these personality traits and between these traits and
various measures of adaptive human functioning suggest a broad, underlying dimension of
adaptability. Specifically, people who possess one of these traits tend to possess the others as
well, and also tend to be effective in and adaptable to both the changing and the enduring
circumstances of life.
2
The primary purpose of the current study is to examine the relationships between
several person variables to identify precisely how they are related to one another, where they
overlap, and where they diverge. The constructs that have been chosen for investigation are
self-efficacy, Extraversion, Neuroticism, positive and negative affect, locus of control,
optimism, self-esteem, and emotional intelligence. These particular variables were chosen
because of their established relevance to healthy human functioning and because of important
unanswered questions about their conceptualization and relation to one another. Subsequent
sections will briefly review the seminal and recent theoretical and empirical literature that
has addressed these constructs, with particular attention to concerns regarding empirical and
conceptual overlap among them.
Self- Efficacy and Social Cognitive Theory
Self-efficacy expectations are an individual's beliefs about his or her ability to
successfully perform a particular behavior (Bandura, 1977, 1982, 1984, 1986,1993). These
expectations are important because of their capacity to predict whether an individual will
attempt a task, how much effort will be exerted, and how long the individual will persist in
the face of adversity. In fact, self-efficacy beliefs exert such a powerful influence over
people that in some cases they are a better predictor of future behavior than are previous
actions (Bandura, 1977, 1982; Locke, Frederick, Lee, & Bobko, 1984), ability (Bandura,
1984; Betz & Hackett, 1983; Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1986), or goal levels (Phillips & Gully,
1997). Bandura (1977) originally developed a comprehensive theory of self-efficacy that
subsequently has been applied to a wide variety of domains, including psychological
adjustment (Magaletta & Oliver, 1999), career choice and pursuits (Lent, Brown, & Hackett,
1994), work-related behavior (Sadri & Robertson, 1993; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998),
3
psychological counseling (Larson, 1998), academic success (Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1984,
1986; Wood Sc. Locke, 1987), social skills (Bradley & Betz, 1999), and health behavior and
physical functioning (Holden, 1991; Mihalko, McAuley, & Bane, 1996). Self-efficacy is an
important element of the broad and comprehensive social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986,
1989,1999.
Social cognitive theory is described by Maddux (1995) as "an approach to
understanding human cognition, action, motivation, and emotion that assumes that people are
capable of self-reflection and self-regulation and that they are active shapers of their
environments rather than simply passive reactors to them" (p. 4). The basic premise of social
cognitive theory is that human functioning can be explained by a model in which human
behavior, personal cognitions, and environmental events all reciprocally influence one
another (Bandura, 1986). Bandura outlined the theory in terms of basic human capabilities
that stem from this model of triadic reciprocal causation. First of all, humans have the
capacity to use symbols in altering, adapting to, and creating meaning from their
environment. They can test possible courses of action symbolically before acting, allowing
them to make estimations of the effectiveness of various behavioral routes rather than having
to constantly resort to tedious trial and error. Secondly, people have the capacity for
forethought, which follows directly from symbolic activity. They can use their expectations
about future events and goals regarding what they hope to achieve to guide their current
behavior, rather than simply reacting to current situations and events. In other words,
anticipated future consequences can be translated into motivators for current behavior.
A third human capability that is part of the foundation of social cognitive theory is the
capacity for vicarious learning (Bandura, 1986). Humans can achieve substantial learning by
4
observing others' behavior and the consequences of that behavior. As with the capacity for
symbolic thought, this allows people to make judgments about effective behavior without the
continual use of trial and error. Bandura maintains that this human ability is vital for
development and even survival, as many mistakes that might be made if it were not for
vicarious learning could prove fatal. Social cognitive theory also emphasizes the capability
for self-regulation. Behavior is not dictated solely by the evaluations of others, but also by
internal standards and expectations. Although external reinforcements influence behavior as
well, an individual's beliefs about appropriate and acceptable action and expectations
regarding his or her own actions have a substantial influence on behavior. A related
capability is self-reflection, which involves meta-cognitions and evaluation of personal
experiences. People think about their thoughts, and evaluate how well their thoughts have
served them in their daily lives.
An important part of self-reflection is self-efficacy. As stated above, self-efficacy
expectations are basically an individual's beliefs about his or her ability to successfully
complete a task or activity (Bandura, 1977, 1986). More recently, the definition of self-
efficacy has been expanded to include a general belief in one's ability to successfully handle
or control important events in life (Bandura, 1989). These beliefs both influence and are
affected by the individual's behaviors in a variety of situations as well as environmental
conditions and events.
Self-efficacy beliefs are derived from four primary sources of information: mastery
experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological arousal (Bandura,
1977, 1982, 1999). Mastery experiences, the most powerful of these four sources, are simply
successful performances of the behaviors under consideration. When individuals have the
5
experience of completing a task to a satisfactory level, they are much more likely to believe
they can do it again. Conversely, when an individual experiences failure at a particular task,
his or her self-efficacy decreases. Self-efficacy can also be affected by vicarious
experiences, or observing someone performing the behavior successfully. This is especially
effective when the model is perceived as being similar to the individual, producing the "If
she can do it, I can do it!" sentiment. Verbal persuasion, or encouragement by others, can
have an impact on self-efficacy as well. Finally, people can derive information about their
abilities from physiological arousal; for example, excessive nervousness or physical fatigue
is usually interpreted as a sign that one does not have the ability to complete the task, and
therefore reduces self-efficacy expectations.
The potency of mastery experiences as a source of efficacy information has been well
established empirically (Campbell & Hackett, 1986; Hackett & Campbell, 1987; Lent et al.,
1994; Lent, Lopez, & Bieschke, 1991; Mihalko et al., 1996). Campbell and Hackett (1986)
found dramatic effects on self-efficacy of either success or failure on a number sequence
task. Specifically, those who succeeded showed increased efficacy after the first success and
further increased efficacy after the second success; the opposite pattern of results was found
for those who failed. These results were replicated with a word anagram task (Hackett &
Campbell, 1987). However, support for the other three sources of efficacy information is
less convincing. Lent et al. (1991) have suggested that they may only be important in
situations in which direct evidence of one's capabilities (i.e., mastery experiences) is not
available; in fact, Matsui, Matsui, and Ohnishi (1990) found verbal persuasion to make no
unique contribution to performance beyond the influence of mastery experiences. When
6
mastery experiences are present, information obtained from the other sources may be largely
redundant.
In addition to efficacy expectations, self-efficacy theory includes the component of
outcome expectations (Bandura, 1977, 1984). Whereas efficacy expectations are the
individual's beliefs about his or her ability to execute the behaviors necessary to complete the
task, outcome expectations are the beliefs a person has regarding the result of his or her
behavior. For example, an employee may believe that although he has the ability to do his
job well, his boss doesn't appreciate him and won't recognize his accomplishments.
Therefore, he may choose not to put forth effort in his work because even though he has high
efficacy expectations, his outcome expectations are quite low. Outcome expectations can be
largely influenced by efficacy expectations in situations in which outcomes are closely linked
to the quality of performance (Bandura, 1986). In addition, it has been shown that the impact
of efficacy beliefs on behavior is stronger when outcome expectations are high (Lent et al.,
1991). Although both efficacy and outcome expectations have important influences on
behavior, efficacy expectations are generally thought to be more potent (Bandura, 1986).
Self-efficacy expectations vary on three primary dimensions that also affect behavior
(Bandura, 1977). The first is magnitude, or level of difficulty to which the individual feels
confident of success. Second is generality, or the range of activities to which self-efficacy
expectations extend. In some cases, mastery experiences may produce efficacy beliefs for a
particular task but have no effect on efficacy for other tasks; in other cases increased efficacy
beliefs may generalize to increased efficacy in unrelated tasks for which there have been no
direct success experiences. Thirdly, self-efficacy expectations vary in strength, or the extent
7
to which these beliefs persist in spite of failure experiences. All of these dimensions can
affect the degree to which sources of efficacy information affect efficacy beliefs.
Bandura (1977, 1999) also noted that the impact on efficacy expectations of any of
the four sources of information depends on the manner in which the information is
interpreted by the individual. For example, some people may be energized and emboldened
by verbal encouragement while others dismiss it outright. In analogous conditions, one
individual may identify with and gain confidence from the success of a model and another
may not. Even direct success experiences may fail to increase self-efficacy if the individual
attributes the achievement to external factors such as luck or the help of others rather than to
his or her own ability. For example, Campbell and Hackett (1986) found that women were
more likely than men to attribute success on a math-related task to luck, and persisted in
rating their ability lower than men did even after identical success experiences. Self-efficacy
is mostly likely to be strengthened by repeated experiences of success with a task that are
reinforced and that occur under various conditions (Lent et al., 1994). Other factors that
affect people's attributions regarding success experiences include task difficulty, effort
expended, assistance received, emotional and physical state, and rate of improvement over
time (Bandura, 1999). With regard to failure, some individuals exhibit more resiliency in
their self-efficacy than others. Specifically, people who attribute failure to lack of effort
maintain high self-efficacy, but when people who attribute failure to lack of ability fail, their
self-efficacy plummets (Bandura, 1993).
Although self-efficacy is certainly malleable, there is evidence that efficacy beliefs
are resistant to change. Alden (1986) found that social feedback that was inconsistent with
efficacy expectations was more likely to be attributed to external factors, whereas feedback
8
that was consistent with efficacy beliefs was more likely to be attributed to internal
characteristics. For example, individuals with low self-efficacy for social situations credited
positive evaluations of their social performance to the Agreeableness of the setting or the
friendliness their partner; because of this, positive feedback had little effect on their low self-
efficacy.
Career self-efficacv. Vocational behavior is one of the areas in which the application
of self-efficacy theory has received a large amount of theoretical and empirical attention
(Lent et al., 1994; Lent & Hackett, 1987). Hackett and Betz (1981) first suggested that self-
efficacy might be important in understanding career development, specifically impacting
academic achievement, career choices, and career adjustment. Since then, various forms of
career-related self-efficacy have been found to be robustly predictive of choice and success
in academic and vocational domains (Betz & Hackett, 1986; Lent et al., 1994; Multon,
Brown, & Lent, 1991; Sadri & Robertson, 1993). For example, self-efficacy for the six
Holland (1997) themes has been reported to predict occupational choice; specifically,
individuals' confidence is highest for the Holland theme corresponding to their job (Donnay
& Borgen, 1999; Harmon et al., 1996). Strong efficacy beliefs can be facilitative of career
choice, but weak efficacy beliefs can be barriers to choice (Betz & Hackett, 1997).
Efficacy expectations are also related to occupational interests, such that people
develop interests in activities about which they feel efficacious (Betz & Hackett, 1981; Lent
et al., 1994; Lent et al., 1986; Lent, Larkin, & Brown, 1989; Lent et al., 1991). In fact, self-
efficacy and interests mutually influence one another; self-efficacy leads to greater interest in
an activity, which in turn leads to interest-related goals and increased involvement in that
activity. Increased involvement leads to more success experiences, which boosts self-
9
efficacy. Although self-efficacy and interests are generally correlated, there is ample
evidence that the two are separate constructs, and that self-efficacy contributes to the
prediction of various vocationally-related behaviors independent of interests (Campbell &
Hackett, 1986; Donnay & Borgen, 1999; Hackett & Campbell, 1987; Lent et al., 1989).
Outcome expectancies have been shown to be related to interests as well (Lent et al., 1991),
and it has been posited that a combination of efficacy and outcome expectancies should
predict interests better than self-efficacy does alone (Lent et al., 1994).
Career self-efficacy has been shown to be especially important in understanding
women's career development (see Phillips & Imhoff, 1997). Betz and Hackett (1981) were
the first scholars to examine this area of inquiry; they found women to have lower efficacy
expectations than men for traditionally masculine occupations and higher efficacy
expectations than men for traditionally feminine occupations, whereas no differences were
evident in men's efficacy expectations for masculine and feminine occupations. In
regression analyses they found that consideration of occupational alternatives was predicted
by gender, self-efficacy, and vocational interest, but not by ability. Although self-efficacy is
a personal estimation of ability, research has shown that measurements of self-efficacy and
ability on a particular domain are often only moderately and inconsistently related (Lent et
al., 1984, 1986; Swanson & Lease, 1990). Self-efficacy has been described as more
important than ability in the prediction of performance (Lent et al., 1994); in one study, math
aptitude scores were shown not to contribute to the prediction of major choice at all (Betz &
Hackett, 1983).
It has also been demonstrated that women have lower efficacy expectations for
traditionally male content domains, such as mathematics (Betz & Hackett, 1983; Campbell &
10
Hackett, 1986; Lent et al., 1991; Matsui et al., 1990) and mechanical ability (Swanson &
Lease, 1990). Betz and Hackett (1983) found math self-efficacy to be the strongest predictor
of choice of a math-related major, women's lower math efficacy is reflected in their
underrepresentation in such majors. These findings and those of Betz and Hackett (1981)
have been explained by the influences of gender role socialization; women's range of career
self-efficacy may be narrower than men's primarily because of gender differences in
Bandura's (1982) sources of efficacy information (Hackett & Betz, 1981). Specifically, boys
and girls are likely to have differential access to mastery experiences, role models, and verbal
persuasion in task domains related to occupations that are traditionally considered to be
masculine or feminine. These differences in experience lead to differences in self-efficacy,
which in turn contribute to the underrepresentation of women in more prestigious, male-
dominated careers (Betz & Hackett, 1997). Low self-efficacy among women has also been
cited as an important internal (psychological) barrier to career development, as well as a
contributor to the potency of external barriers (Hackett & Betz, 1981). Specifically, external
barriers (e.g., discrimination, sexual harassment, poor social support) can only be overcome
with the help of a strong sense of self-efficacy.
Gender differences have been reported in self-efficacy for the six Holland (1997)
themes as well (Betz, Borgen, & Harmon, 1996; Betz, Harmon, & Borgen, 1996; Parsons &
Betz, 1998; Swanson & Lease, 1990). Betz, Harmon, and Borgen (1996) found that college
men reported more confidence than college women in the Realistic, Enterprising,
Investigative, and Conventional themes. Employed adult men reported more confidence than
employed adult women in the Realistic and Enterprising themes. College women reported
more confidence than college men only for the Social theme; there was no theme for which
11
employed adult women reported more confidence than employed adult men. However, very
few gender differences in confidence were found within occupational group; the small
differences that were found were for confidence areas other than the one characterizing their
occupation. Using a slightly different approach, Swanson and Lease (1990) found that
college men rated themselves and their same-sex peers higher than college women rated
themselves and their same-sex peers only on the Realistic theme. Women rated themselves
and their same-sex peers higher than men rated themselves and their same-sex peers only on
the Social theme. Overall, women tended to rate their peers higher than they rated
themselves, whereas men tended to rate their peers lower than they rated themselves.
In addition to gender, self-efficacy can be affected by factors associated with
ethnicity and socioeconomic status (Lent et al., 1994). Specifically, these issues can impact
access to quality education, which can greatly affect an individual's opportunities for
exposure to various academic and career-related domains. In addition, cultural factors
influence which activities are reinforced and which ones are discouraged, as well as the types
of role models to whom an individual is exposed.
In the area of academic achievement, self-efficacy has been found to account for 14%
of the variance in performance and 12% of the variance in persistence (Multon et al., 1991).
Within science and engineering majors, students with greater confidence in their ability to
successfully complete academic requirements in these areas earn higher grades and are more
persistent in their majors (Lent et al., 1984). Self-efficacy predicts academic performance,
persistence, and range of career options considered even after controlling for other variables
such as ability and vocational interests (Lent et al., 1986). Self-efficacy has also been found
to be a more important predictor of grades and retention than other theoretically viable
12
variables such as congruence between interests and major, and anticipation of consequences
in decision-making (Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1987).
Math self-efficacy, more specifically, predicts selection of science-based college
majors; as stated above, math self-efficacy has also been found to be stronger in college men
than in college women, corresponding to the gender difference in representation in science-
related majors (Betz & Hackett, 1983). However, studies that focus on students in science-
related majors have often failed to find gender differences in self-efficacy regarding the tasks
of their major (e.g., Lent et al., 1984), suggesting that women who pursue these majors do so
because of their higher levels of self-efficacy. In a study of Japanese undergraduates who
had passed the highly selective entrance exam, Matsui et al. (1990) found only modest
gender differences in math self-efficacy, and no significant gender differences in the four
sources of efficacy information. Similarly, gender differences in self-efficacy for a math-
related task diminish when men and women have the same success experiences in a
controlled environment (Campbell & Hackett, 1986), and in a general college population,
gender differences in math self-efficacy disappear when differential efficacy-building
experiences are controlled (Lent et al., 1991). Gender differences in math self-efficacy also
disappear when the task involves stereotypically feminine activities, such as mentally
calculating a grocery bill (Betz & Hackett, 1983). Interestingly, Campbell and Hackett
(1986) found that women's self-efficacy was more strongly affected by both success and
failure on a math-related task experiences than men's; this could be because the women had
fewer past experiences in mathematics with which to make their efficacy judgments.
A specific career domain that has recently received attention with regard to self-
efficacy is psychological counseling (Larson, 1998). Although this is a relatively new area of
13
inquiry, research has demonstrated that counseling self-efficacy relates to counselor
performance, counselor anxiety, and the supervision environment (see Larson & Daniels,
1998, for a comprehensive review). Larson (1998) developed a social cognitive model of
counselor training, which locates counseling self-efficacy within the larger framework of
social cognitive theory. The personal agency of the counselor and the counselor's behaviors
operate within the context of the stable, individual characteristics of the counselor; the larger
sociocultural environment forms the larger context in which triadic reciprocality between
personal agency, behavior, and environmental factors takes place. In this model, self-
efficacy, through mediating factors such as affective and motivational cognitive processes, is
predicted to be the primary causal mechanism by which effective counseling does or does not
occur. Because this theory was only recently developed, it has not yet been fully tested
empirically.
Self-efficacy and performance. As has already been suggested, self-efficacy has
wide-reaching implications for an individual. According to Bandura (1984, 1993), people
who regard themselves as highly efficacious think, feel, behave, and motivate themselves in
different ways than do those who perceive themselves as inefficacious. The most productive
efficacy beliefs are those that slightly exceed one's current skill level (Bandura, 1986). If
individuals believe they are slightly more capable than they really are, then they will be
willing to take on challenges that will allow for skill development. If one has a highly
accurate sense of self-efficacy, he or she is less likely to attempt new behaviors, and there is
little opportunity for growth or improvement. Efficacy beliefs that are grossly inaccurate can
be very unproductive, because they lead people either to attempt activities at which they are
14
highly likely to fail (in the case of inflated self-efficacy), or to avoid tasks that are well
within their range of competency (in the case of low self-efficacy).
Self-efficacy has been shown to predict performance in a variety of settings and
situations (Lent et al., 1994; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). For example, self-efficacy has
been reported to relate positively to managerial performance (Wood, Bandura, & Bailey,
1990), learning in a computer software training course (Martocchio & Judge, 1997),
newcomer adjustment to an organizational setting (Saks, 1995), skills acquisition (Mitchell,
Hopper, Daniels, George-Falvey, & James, 1994), and naval performance at sea (Eden &
Zuk, 1995). Overall, meta-analytic findings suggest a 28% gain in performance due to self-
efficacy (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998); a meta-analysis focusing on academic performance
specifically found self-efficacy to account for 14% of the variance (Multon et al., 1991). The
relationship between self-efficacy and performance is moderated by task complexity, such
that it is stronger for simple tasks and weaker for more complex tasks (Stajkovic & Luthans,
1998). It is also moderated by student achievement, such that it is stronger for low achievers
than for average achievers (Multon et al., 1991). Of course, performance, in turn, has an
effect on self-efficacy in the form of mastery experiences (Bandura, 1982; Lent et al., 1994);
in fact, some research has shown past performance to predict self-efficacy more strongly than
self-efficacy predicts future performance (Locke et al., 1984).
The characteristics of a learning environment have been shown to relate to the
development and strengthening of self-efficacy, which in turn predicts academic success
(Bandura, 1993). First of all, a learning environment that construes ability as an acquirable
skill rather than as an inherent characteristic promotes a sense of self-efficacy. Wood and
Bandura (1989) found that when individuals struggled with a simulated organizational
15
management task, those who had been told that success reflected an acquirable intellectual
skill performed much better than those who had been told that success reflected an inherent
intellectual capacity. Specifically, when experiencing difficulties in the task, the former
group retained their sense of efficacy, continued to set challenging goals for themselves, and
used effective problem-solving strategies, whereas the latter group's perceived efficacy
plummeted, they focused on their deficiencies, lowered their expectations, and were less
successful. Other characteristics of a learning environment that promote self-efficacy include
de-emphasis of competitive social comparison, emphasis on personal mastery or self-
comparison of progress, and feedback that emphasizes progress and achievement rather than
shortcomings (Bandura, 1993).
Self-efficacy also has an impact on goal-setting, such that individuals with higher
self-efficacy set higher and more specific goals for themselves and are more committed to
their goals, which leads to higher performance (Locke et al., 1984; Phillips & Gully, 1997;
Wood & Bandura, 1989; Wood & Locke, 1987). In addition, people with high self-efficacy
visualize anticipatory scenarios of success, whereas people with low self-efficacy visualize
failure scenarios and dwell on what could go wrong (Bandura, 1993). However, self-efficacy
also has a direct impact on performance independent of the effects of ability and goal level
(Locke et al., 1984).
Self-efficacy has an interesting relationship with goal orientation as well. Individuals
who set performance- or recognition-oriented goals tend to have much lower self-efficacy
than those who set learning- or mastery-oriented goals (Phillips & Gully, 1997). However,
when participants are randomly assigned to conditions, those with low self-efficacy perform
more poorly with performance-oriented goals than with mastery-oriented goals, whereas
16
those with high self-efficacy perform equally well in either condition (Stevens & Gist, 1997).
Furthermore, in the mastery-oriented condition low- and high-self efficacy participants
perform equally well. However, low self-efficacy participants worry more about their
performance than high self-efficacy participants do regardless of goal-orientation.
Generalized self-efficacv. Bandura (1977) originally conceived of self-efficacy as
task-specific, and continues to maintain that it is a dynamic, multifaceted belief system that
varies across situations and activities (Bandura, 1999). Indeed, there is evidence for within-
individual differences between self-efficacy domains (Lent et al., 1986), and measures of
task-specific self-efficacy are generally found to be more powerful than more general
measures when specific behaviors are the focus of investigation (Lennings, 1994; Maddux,
1995; Slanger & Rudestam, 1997). For example, career decision-making self-efficacy
specifically is associated with less career indecision (Taylor & Betz, 1983), but more general
measures of academic self-efficacy have been shown to have no relationship with career
indecision (Lent et al., 1987).
However, there is also substantial support for the conceptualization of self-efficacy as
a generalized dispositional variable (Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, &
Welbourne, 1999; Lennings, 1994; Sherer & Adams, 1983; Sherer et al., 1982; Tipton &
Worthington, 1984). In other words, although self-efficacy does vary somewhat from one
situation to another, there is also a relatively stable tendency for some individuals to feel
more efficacious than others across a variety of diverse tasks and behaviors; this may be
related to an individual's belief that he or she can master new situations (Gist, 1987). Tipton
and Worthington (1984) found a measure of generalized self-efficacy to predict effort
expended, perseverance, and success in two unrelated tasks.
17
Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997) further developed the concept of generalized self-
efficacy, which they defined as an individual's confidence in his or her abilities to summon
the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action necessary to maintain general
control over life events. Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger (1998) found generalized self-
efficacy to be predictive of life satisfaction and job satisfaction. They also suggested that
generalized self-efficacy should be related to an average of diverse task-specific self-efficacy
scores. To date, only Betz and Klein (1996) have explored such a relation. They reported
significant correlations between generalized self-efficacy and the average of confidence
scores for the six Holland themes for both women and men, although the relationship was
stronger for men than for women, hi addition, they found significant correlations between
generalized self-efficacy and self-efficacy for each of the Holland themes for men; for
women, they found that generalized self-efficacy was related significantly only to the
Investigative, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional themes.
Self-efficacv and personality. The relationship between self-efficacy and personality
has been described as an important one that has been neglected by research (Borgen, 1999).
Self-efficacy has been shown to relate to personality variables in several specific contexts,
but a more general conceptualization of their overlap has yet to be clarified. Wooten (1991)
found that personality traits influence individuals' job acceptance behavior differently
depending on their levels of self-efficacy, and Cozzarelli (1993) found self-efficacy to
mediate the relationship between personality characteristics and coping with abortion.
Major, Richards, Cooper, Cozzarelli, and Zubek (1998) referred to self-esteem, perceived
control, and optimism as "resilient personality resources" (p. 746), and found that possessing
more of them was related to higher self-efficacy for coping with an upcoming abortion; self-
18
efficacy, in turn, was related to less post-abortion distress. Self-efficacy for participating in a
self-managed work group relates negatively to Neuroticism and positively to Extraversion,
Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness, although Agreeableness does not explain a significant
amount of variance beyond that accounted for by the other three factors (Thorns et al., 1996).
Interestingly, generalized self-efficacy has been shown to relate only to Extraversion among
the Big Five factors (Bernard, Hutchison, Lavin, & Pennington, 1996).
Self-efficacy has also been shown to relate to perfectionism, such that high levels of
self-oriented perfectionism (setting high standards for oneself) and other-oriented
perfectionism (setting unrealistic standards for others) are associated with low self-efficacy,
but high levels of socially-prescribed perfectionism (belief that significant others have
unrealistic standards for oneself) are associated with high self-efficacy (Hart, Gilner, Handal,
& Gfeller, 1998). Self-efficacy also has a small relationship with personality disorders,
specifically the avoidant, dependent, histrionic, and schizotypal personality disorders (Sinha
& Watson, 1997).
Another characteristic that has been shown to relate to self-efficacy is sensation
seeking (Slanger & Rudestam, 1997). In a study comparing individuals participating in high
risk sports (relatively low likelihood of death for skilled participants) and those participating
in extreme sports (relatively high likelihood of death in the case of minute error), the only
variable distinguishing the two groups was self-efficacy beliefs. However, only situation-
specific self-efficacy, and not generalized self-efficacy or even general physical self-efficacy,
predicted group membership. This provides support for Bandura's (1977) assertion that self-
efficacy is situation-specific.
19
Specific confidence in the various Holland (1997) themes has been shown to relate to
interest in that theme (Betz, Harmon, & Borgen, 1996; Donnay & Borgen, 1999; Swanson,
1993). Although it has been suggested that self-efficacy is not conceptually distinct from
interest in a particular theme (Tracey, 1997), other research has provided evidence that the
two are indeed separate constructs (Betz, Harmon, & Borgen, 1996; Swanson, 1993).
Confidence in the Holland themes has been shown to related to other personality-related
characteristics as well (Tuel & Betz, 1998). Specifically, confidence in the Social theme is
related to a preference for working with people, whereas confidence in the Realistic or
Investigative theme is related to a preference for working with ideas, data, or things
Confidence in the Investigative, Artistic, Social, or Enterprising theme is related to a
preference for an academic learning environment as opposed to a practical one. Confidence
in the Artistic, Social, Enterprising, or Conventional theme is related to a desire to be a
leader. Confidence in the Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Enterprising, or Conventional
theme is related to a preference for risk taking and adventurous activities.
Personality-Related Constructs
Extraversion
Extraversion is a robust member of the Big Five factors of personality (Digman,
1990; Goldberg, 1993), which includes characteristics such as how sociable people are, how
much they like people and large gatherings, and how active and talkative they are (Costa &
McCrae, 1992). Extraversion has been shown to strongly predict the amount and length of
social contact an individual experiences, as well as the amount of enjoyment he or she
receives from social contact (Berry & Hansen, 1996). People who are high on Extraversion
like excitement and stimulation, and they are generally upbeat and optimistic (Costa &
20
McCrae, 1992). In general, Extraversion suggests an energetic, assertive, and positive
approach to the social and material world (John & Srivastava, 1999). Extraversion has been
described as one of the basic traits that characterize happy people (Myers & Diener, 1995),
although people who are low on Extraversion are not necessarily unhappy (Costa & McCrae,
1992). Rather than exhibiting characteristics opposite of high Extraversion, people who are
low on Extraversion seem to display an absence of Extraversion. In other words, they are
reserved rather than unfriendly, and independent rather than followers. They do not
necessarily suffer from social anxiety, and they are not pessimistic or negative. Accordingly,
Extraversion correlates positively with positive daily mood, but has no relationship with
negative mood (David, Green, Martin, & Suis, 1997).
Extraversion has been shown to relate to job satisfaction in general (Tokar & Subich,
1997) and to success in several specific career roles. Barrick and Mount (1991) found that
Extraversion predicted training proficiency in five occupational groups (professional, police,
managers, sales, skilled/semi-skilled labor) but only predicted overall job performance for
managers and sales, the two categories involving the most social interaction. Another study
found that although observer ratings of Extraversion in sales representatives (performed by
supervisors, co-workers, and customers) were significant predictors of job performance, self-
ratings of Extraversion were not (Mount, Barrick, & Strauss, 1994). Observers may be better
judges of personality factors relevant to job performance, because they see the individuals in
the work setting only, whereas people experience themselves in a variety of casual and
occupational settings. Extraversion was also found to be a better predictor of job
performance for managers in jobs with high autonomy than those with low autonomy
(Barrick & Mount, 1993). In a study of success in management positions, Melamed (1995)
21
found that the personality traits of independence, toughness, and Extraversion were the best
predictors of salary.
In terms of vocational interests and preferences, Extraversion has been shown to
relate strongly to interest in Holland's Social and Enterprising themes (Holland, Johnston, &
Asama, 1994; Larson, Rottinghaus, & Borgen, 2001; Tokar & Swanson, 1995; Tokar, Vaux,
& Swanson, 1995) and to preferences for leadership, working with people, and taking risks
(Lindley & Borgen, 2000). Interestingly, Extraversion has been reported to relate to a
preference for an academic learning environment among women but not among men.
Finally, Extraversion has been shown to correlate positively with generalized self-efficacy
(Bernard et al., 1996) and also with confidence in the Social and Enterprising Holland
themes, but negatively with confidence in the Investigative and Conventional themes (Tuel &
Betz, 1998).
Neuroticism
Neuroticism is also one of the Big Five personality factors (Digman, 1990; Goldberg,
1993). Neuroticism contrasts emotional adjustment and stability with maladjustment, and
involves characteristics such as susceptibility to psychological distress and the general
tendency to experience negative emotions such as fear, anxiety, sadness, anger, and guilt.
People who display a high degree of Neuroticism are more likely to have irrational ideas, to
have low impulse control, to cope poorly with stress (Costa & McCrae, 1992), and to report
low life satisfaction (Judge, Locke et al., 1998); they are regarded by others as nervous,
moody, tense, and temperamental (Goldberg, 1993). Neuroticism is regarded by some as the
opposite of self-esteem (Judge et al., 1997; Judge, Locke et al., 1998), and has been shown to
relate negatively to locus of control, optimism, and Extraversion as well (Bernard et al.,
22
1996). However, whereas Judge and colleagues (Judge et al., 1997; Judge, Locke et al.,
1998) reported a negative relationship between Neuroticism and generalized self-efficacy,
others (e.g., Bernard et al., 1996) have failed to find one.
Neuroticism is related to a dependent decision-making style and inhibited problem-
solving skills, which have been shown to translate into career indecision (Chartrand, Rose,
Elliott, Marmarosh, & Caldwell, 1993). When people who are high on Neuroticism do make
job choices, they tend to be occupations that have a set routine, are less complex, and require
less independent work (Tokar, Fischer, & Subich, 1998). Interestingly, Neuroticism has been
found to predict lower job satisfaction (Judge, Locke et al., 1998), but to be unrelated to job
performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
Positive and Negative Affect
Positive affect is a relatively stable tendency to experience emotional states such as
enthusiasm, energy, interest, alertness, and affiliation, whereas negative affect is a propensity
towards feelings such as irritation, sadness, guilt, nervousness, and disgust (Watson & Clark,
1997). Positive affect is closely related to Extraversion, (see Costa & McCrae, 1992;
Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) a connection that has been shown to generalize across
language and culture (Allik & Realo, 1997). Factor analytic research has consistently found
positive affect and Extraversion to load on a single factor (Berry & Hansen, 1996; McFatter,
1994; Meyer & Shack, 1989). However, others have shown that positive affect is predicted
equally well by the Big Five dimensions of Extraversion or Agreeableness, suggesting that
while positive affect stems primarily from interactions with others, both quantity and quality
of relationships are important in that connection (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998). Positive affect
is also related to academic self-efficacy (Lee & Bobko, 1994), generalized self-efficacy,
locus of control, and self-esteem (Judge et al., 1999). It has also been suggested that positive
affect may actually be an alternative measure of life satisfaction or self-esteem (Judge et al.,
1997).
Negative affect is highly related to Neuroticism (Allik & Realo, 1997; Berry &
Hansen, 1996). Whereas some research has found evidence for an interaction between
Extraversion and Neuroticism in predicting positive and negative affect (McFatter, 1994),
other research has not supported this finding (Allik & Realo, 1997; Rusting & Larsen, 1997).
In general, it has been reported that positive affect has no relation to Neuroticism and
negative affect has no relation to Extraversion (Allik & Realo, 1997; Diener & Emmons,
1985; Watson et al., 1999). While it would seem intuitive that positive and negative affect
would represent opposite ends of a bipolar dimension, a large body of literature that
concludes they are independent constructs has accumulated (e.g., Diener, Smith, & Fujita,
1995; Watson & Clark, 1997; Watson et al., 1988), including research with other cultures and
languages (Allik & Realo, 1997). In addition to their differential relations with Neuroticism
and Extraversion, it has been demonstrated that positive and negative affect are relatively
independent when measured over long periods of time (Diener & Emmons, 1985).
To cite a more detailed example of the ambiguity of the relation between positive and
negative affect, Berry and Hansen (1996) found both to correlate positively with the amount
of time individuals spend engaging in social activity with other individuals and groups of
people, although individuals who were high on negative affect had fewer social interactions
with members of the opposite sex. Positive affect predicted the general quality of people's
interactions with others based on ratings by self, interaction partner, and objective observer,
but no relation was found for negative affect. Individuals who were high on positive affect
24
were found to experience their interactions with others as more enjoyable, comfortable, and
pleasant than those who are low on positive affect; those who were high on negative affect
reported more enjoyable group interactions.
The exact nature of the relationship between positive and negative affect is clearly a
point of contention, and in the past few years this long-standing controversy has been re-
ignited (Feldman Barrett & Russell, 1998; Russell & Carroll, 1999; Watson & Clark, 1997;
Watson & Tellegen, 1999; Watson, Wiese, Vaidya, & Tellegen, 1999). Although many
researchers assert that positive and negative affect are independent dimensions (e.g., Watson
& Clark, 1997; Watson et al., 1988), others have maintained that the more intuitive, bipolar
solution is the correct one (e.g., Green, Goldman, & Salovey, 1993). Green et al. (1993)
stated emphatically that the observed "independence of positive and negative affect is a
statistical artifact" (p. 1029). They asserted that when random and nonrandom sources of
error in mood measurement are accounted for, it becomes clear that positive and negative
affect are largely bipolar opposites. Diener & Emmons (1985) found positive and negative
affect to be moderately negatively related when short periods of time were evaluated, and
most strongly so during times of intense emotion.
Ultimately, it appears that this controversy boils down to misunderstandings
regarding what is actually meant by "positive affect" and "negative affect," and differences
of opinion in how they should be measured. According to Feldman Barrett and Russell
(1998), the confusion has arisen out of the fact that "positive affect" as conceptualized by
Watson et al. (1988) does not include all positive feeling states, as one might assume, but
rather is a subset of affective states that are both pleasant and activated. Specifically, it
appears that the terms "positive affect" and "negative affect" have sometimes been used to
25
mean "pleasantness" and "unpleasantness," which is inaccurate. Pleasantness and.
unpleasantness are very different empirically from positive and negative affect, and are in
fact two poles of a bipolar dimension (Watson & Tellegen, 1999).
For the explanatory purposes of this review with regard to the current study, it
appears that the best way to reconcile this controversy is using the original two-dimensional
diagram introduced by Watson and Tellegen (1985), in which the 3; axis is positive affect and
the x axis is negative affect. The two axes are intersected diagonally by the dimensions of
pleasantness vs. unpleasantness and strong activation vs. disengagement (also commonly
referred to as high vs. low activation). High positive affect is the combination of
pleasantness and high activation, whereas low positive affect is the combination of
unpleasantness and low activation. High negative affect is the combination of
unpleasantness and high activation, whereas low negative affect is the combination of
pleasantness and low activation. Because this study is concerned with the overlap of active
individual characteristics, Watson and Tellegen's (1985; Watson et al., 1988) classic
definitions of positive and negative affect best fit my purposes.
Locus of Control
Locus of control involves an individual's tendency to believe either that he or she
generally has control over life events (internal locus of control) or that they are controlled by
the environment, fate, or powerful others (external locus of control; Rotter, 1966). In
general, individuals who believe they exercise control over events are more active and exert
more effort in various situations than those who do not (Bandura, 1986). Locus of control
has been shown to predict job satisfaction, life satisfaction (Judge, Locke et al., 1998), and
individuals' appraisals of the controllability of stressful situations such as employment
decisions and teacher bias (Peacock & Wong, 1996). Locus of control has also been shown
to relate negatively to Neuroticism, and positively to self-esteem (Judge, Erez, & Bono,
1998; Judge, Locke et al., 1998), positive affect (Judge et al., 1999), general happiness
(Myers & Diener, 1995), and other various aspects of psychological well-being; for example,
individuals with rheumatoid arthritis experience greater depression if they believe they have
little control over the illness but blame themselves for negative events such as symptom
flares (Schiaffino & Revenson, 1992). Interestingly, this finding was replicated when the
control construct was replaced by symptom management efficacy beliefs.
Since Rotter's (1966) original formulation of the unidimensional construct of internal
vs. external control, others have suggested that locus of control is a more complex,
multifaceted construct than was first suggested. Specifically, Levenson (1974,1981)
specified that an external locus of control could be either an expectation that the world is
random and unordered and that events are controlled by chance, or an expectation that there
is order and predictability in the world and that events are controlled by powerful others.
According to Levenson (1981), this distinction is important because the latter orientation
provides the possibility of at least some measure of indirect control, whereas the former
offers none at all. Therefore, individuals with each of these orientations would be expected
to act and react to events differently from one another. Indeed, research has provides support
for the measurement of external locus of control as the two distinct orientations described
above (Levenson, 1974). Although measures of expectations of control by chance and by
powerful others are moderately correlated with one another, factor analysis provides support
for conceptualization of them as distinct. Furthermore, neither the Chance scale nor the
27
Powerful Others scale measures the opposite of internal locus of control, suggesting three
separate orientations.
Locus of control is similar to the outcome expectations component of self-efficacy
theory in that it is related to control of outcomes rather-than ability to perform certain
behaviors (Bandura, 1986; Maddux, 1995). Locus of control has been shown to be strongly
related to generalized self-efficacy (Judge, Erez, & Bomo, 1998; Judge, Locke, et al., 1998;
Lennings, 1994; Phillips & Gully, 1997); in fact, it has: been suggested that locus of control
may be a less exact measure of the construct of generalized self-efficacy (Judge et al., 1997).
Like individuals who have high self-efficacy, those whto perceive they have control exert
more effort in trying to cope with difficult situations (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992). However,
perceptions of control have been shown to contribute mniquely to adjustment (CozzareUi,
1993), and it has been suggested that task-specific self—efficacy and locus of control are quite
different from one another (Judge, Locke et al., 1998).
According to Gist (1987), locus of control may influence individuals' interpretations
of Bandura's (1977, 1982) sources of efficacy information. Specifically, fewer mastery
experiences may be required to improve the self-efficacy of people with an internal locus of
control and they may respond more positively to vicarious experiences because they tend to
believe that they, like the models, generally have control over life events. Conversely,
individuals with an external locus of control may attribrute personal success experiences to
luck and the success of others to personal attributes the^y believe they themselves do not
possess. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that attributing performance to factors under one's
control leads to higher self-efficacy than attributing performance to external factors
(Martocchio & Dulebohn, 1994), and that locus of control has a modest moderating effect on
28
the relationships between math self-efficacy and modeling, verbal persuasion, and emotional
arousal (Matsui et al., 1990).
Self-esteem
Self-esteem refers to an individual's self-liking, self-acceptance, and self-respect
(Judge et al., 1997). Individuals who have high self-esteem respect themselves and believe
they have worth as human beings, but do not necessarily consider themselves superior to
others (Rosenberg, 1965). Conversely, low self-esteem is characterized by feelings of
dissatisfaction with and even contempt for the self. Self-esteem is generally characterized as
a stable aspect of personality, as opposed to feelings of self-worth, which can change
depending on the situation (Brown & Button, 1995). However, the two are linked such that
self-esteem includes the capacity to respond to events in ways that are protective of feelings
of self-worth. For example, Brown and Button (1995) found that low self-esteem individuals
experienced a more pronounced drop in their feelings of self-worth following a failure than
did high self-esteem individuals. Although individuals with low self-esteem have been
shown to evaluate their performance more poorly than high self-esteem individuals in both
failure and success situations, when self-evaluations of performance were held constant
across the two groups, the effect of self-esteem was most pronounced for those who
evaluated themselves most harshly.
Self-esteem is distinct from self-efficacy in that it pertains to evaluations of self-
worth rather than personal capabilities (Bandura, 1984). However, there is reason to believe
self-esteem would be related to generalized self-efficacy, because individuals' estimations of
self-worth naturally incorporate their beliefs regarding their abilities to handle and cope with
challenging events in their lives (Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998; Maddux, 1995). Indeed, strong
29
correlations have been reported between self-esteem and generalized self-efficacy (Bernard
et al., 1996; Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998; Judge, Locke et al., 1998); in addition, measures of
general self-efficacy have been shown to be highly influenced by self-esteem, such that those
with high self-esteem are more likely to endorse items regardless of content (Tracey, 1997).
Self-esteem can also influence performance, because individuals with low self-esteem often
overgeneralize the negative implications of failure (Brown & Button, 1995). In addition, low
self-esteem individuals tend to make internal, stable, and global attributions for failure and
external, unstable, and specific attributions for success, whereas high self-esteem individuals
show the opposite pattern (Haugen & Lund, 1998). As a result, the self-efficacy, and
therefore the future performance, of people with low self-esteem is more negatively affected
by failure than is the self-efficacy and future performance of those with high self-esteem.
Self-esteem can be influenced by social comparison, such that the conclusions one draws
based on comparing his or her performance to the performance of others can have
implications for estimations of self-worth (Bandura, 1993).
Self-esteem is also distinct from self-efficacy in the sense that self-esteem is
inherently evaluative but self-efficacy is not (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). In other words,
individuals' beliefs regarding their abilities in domains they do not value do not enter into
their evaluations of themselves, and therefore do not affect their overall sense of worth, or
self-esteem (Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998; Maddux, 1995). As a result, self-efficacy for a
behavior that does not contribute to the individual's evaluation of self-worth should not be
empirically related to self-esteem. Interestingly, gender differences have been found in the
relationship between self-esteem and self-efficacy (Swanson & Lease, 1990). Specifically,
confidence in the Social and Enterprising Holland themes correlated with self-esteem for
30
women, but for men no significant relationships were found between self-esteem and
confidence in any of the Holland themes.
Self-esteem predicts job satisfaction and life satisfaction (Judge, Locke et al., 1998),
and has been named as one of the key characteristics of happy people (Myers & Diener,
1995). Self-esteem has been shown to correlate positively with positive affect. Extraversion,
optimism, and locus of control, and negatively with negative affect and Neuroticism (Bernard
et al., 1996; Brown & Dutton, 1995; Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998; Judge, Locke et al., 1998;
Judge et al., 1999). In fact, it has been suggested that self-esteem may not be distinct from
positive affect (Judge et al., 1997), or alternatively, that self-esteem may be a primary source
of positive affect (Judge, Locke et al., 1998). Other research, however, calls into question
the simplicity of this interpretation (see Campbell & Lavallee, 1993; Kernis, 1993). In
stressful situations, individuals with high self-esteem are able to react in more self-protective
ways than those who have low self-esteem (Cozzarelli, 1993). Low self-esteem is a
substantial predictor of personality disorders, especially borderline and schizotypal (Sinha &
Watson, 1997).
Optimism
Dispositional optimism has been defined as the tendency to expect that events will
turn out positively and that desired outcomes will occur (Scheier & Carver, 1985,1987), and
has been conceptualized by some (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992) as a facet of Extraversion.
Optimism has been shown to relate to persistence in the face of failure (Carver & Scheier,
1981), lower reporting of physical symptoms of anxiety (Scheier & Carver, 1985), and
general physical and psychological well-being (Magaletta & Oliver, 1999). Seligman (1991)
developed the concept of "learned optimism," which he regards as essential to the attainment
31
of happiness and success in life. Indeed, there is evidence that individuals who are high on
dispositional optimism dwell less on negative emotions and report higher quality of life than
do pessimistic individuals (Scheier et al., 1989), perform better in academic situations (Lee,
Ashford, & Jamieson, 1993), and are generally happier people (Myers & Diener, 1995).
Optimism is also related to constructive strategies to deal with stressors (Aspinwall &
Taylor, 1992; Cozzarelli, 1993; Scheier, Weintraub, & Carver, 1986). A composite measure
including optimism., self-esteem and global perceived control has been shown to predict
better mental health and constructive coping strategies during unemployment (Wanberg,
1997). Using a checklist method, Scheier et al. (1986) found that optimistic individuals cope
better with both controllable and uncontrollable stressful events, using problem-focused
coping and positive reinterpretation in controllable situations and adapting through
acceptance or resignation in uncontrollable situations. These findings were replicated when
participants were asked to generate their own coping strategies; in addition, it was found that
optimists were more likely to seek social support, develop elaborate plans for coping, and
suppress activities that competed in their efforts to deal with stressors. Pessimists, on the
other hand, tended to focus on their negative feelings and disengage themselves from the
goal with which the stressor was interfering. Pessimism (the bipolar opposite of optimism) is
related to personality constructs such as irritability, anger/hostility, anxiety (Lee et al., 1993),
and Neuroticism (Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994), and to several personality disorders,
including obsessive-compulsive and antisocial (Sinha & Watson, 1997).
A large body of literature has addressed the relationship between health-promoting
behavior and optimism (see Scheier & Carver, 1992). For example, Scheier et al. (1989)
found dispositional optimism to have a broad effect on coronary artery bypass surgery
32
patients' physical well-being and recovery, both during and after surgery. Before surgery,
optimists reported being less hostile, dwelling less on negative emotions, and were more
likely to be making plans for recovery. Six months after surgery, optimists had a higher self-
reported quality of life. However, Sheier et al. (1989) found specific expectations about
post-operative functioning to be better predictors of specific outcomes than was dispositional
optimism.
Schwarzer (1994) has made a distinction between defensive and functional optimism,
the former consisting of unrealistic, naïve positive beliefs about the future, and the latter
involving beliefs about one's ability to cope with future events and obtain a favorable
outcome. Specifically, he asserts that whereas functional optimism encourages health-
promoting behavior, defensive optimism discourages it. Functional optimists believe good
things will happen (and bad things won't) if they do their part\ defensive optimists believe
good things will happen no matter what. However, others have questioned the validity of the
construct of defensive optimism (Carver & Scheier, 1994).
Some researchers (e.g., Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998) have shied away from the
examination of dispositional optimism because of concerns regarding its measurement and
conceptualization (see Lee et al., 1993; Smith, Pope, Rhodewalt, & Poulton, 1989).
Specifically, it has been criticized for lacking discriminant validity with Neuroticism, locus
of control, self-efficacy (Judge et al., 1997), Extraversion, positive affect (Schwarzer, 1994),
and self-esteem (Bernard et al., 1996; Cozzarelli, 1993). For example, considerable research
(e.g., Scheier et al., 1994; Smith et al., 1989) has demonstrated that the relationship between
optimism and reporting of physical symptoms disappears when anxiety and Neuroticism are
33
taken into consideration. Schwarzer (1994) found optimism and self-efficacy to relate
similarly to a wide variety of variables pertaining to coping, health, and emotions.
Schwarzer (1994) has further muddled the situation by conceptualizing functional
optimism as consisting of the components optimistic explanatory style, dispositional
optimism, and self-efficacy, all of which overlap dramatically with other variables under
consideration here. Specifically, optimistic explanatory style is the attributional pattern
exhibited by individuals with high self-esteem, which involves making internal, stable, and
global attributions for positive events. Furthermore, Schwarzer (1994, 1999) uses the term
"outcome expectancies," a central component of self-efficacy theory, interchangeably with
dispositional optimism.
In spite of problematic conceptual and empirical overlap, distinctions between
optimism and other personality constructs continue to be maintained by theoretical
arguments and research support (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992; Lee et al., 1993; Magaletta &
Oliver, 1999; Peacock & Wong, 1996; Scheier & Carver, 1985; Scheier et al., 1994).
Peacock and Wong (1996) found optimism and locus of control to contribute independently
and almost equally to the prediction of appraisals of the controllability of stressful situations,
and Scheier et al. (1994) found dispositional optimism to predict constructive coping
strategies even after controlling for other theoretically viable variables such as self-esteem
and Neuroticism. Aspinwall and Taylor (1992) reported that although the effects of self-
esteem and locus of control on adjustment to college were fully explained by mood and
coping strategies, optimism continued to exert a direct influence on adjustment even after
controlling for mood and coping. Conceptually, Carver and Scheier (1994) maintain that
optimism is clearly distinct from self-efficacy and adds explanatory power beyond that of
34
self-efficacy. Schwarzer (1994) himself acknowledged that tike term "optimistic explanatory
style" is problematic, as attributions are implicitly retrospective and optimism by definition
involves beliefs about future events.
Emotional Intelligence
The concept of emotional intelligence was first formally introduced by Salovey and
Mayer (1990), who defined it as "the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and
emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking
and actions" (p. 187). In other words, emotional intelligence Sbcuses specifically on the
recognition and use of emotional states to solve problems and «regulate behavior. Salovey
and Mayer (1990) identified three general processes that fall wilder the rubric of emotional
intelligence: appraisal and expression of emotion, regulation oof emotion, and utilization of
emotion. Appraisal and expression of emotion involves, first of all, the ability to identify
one's own emotions and then to effectively express them throuigh verbal and/or nonverbal
means. Appraisal and expression of emotion also involves the ability to correctly perceive
the emotions of others, and to experience and express empathy for others. These abilities
have been regarded as a central component of emotional intelli gence (Mayer & Geher, 1996;
Mayer & Salovey, 1993). Salovey and Mayer (1990) suggested that the perception of one's
own and others' emotions may be highly interrelated, such that the two capacities may not
exist without the other. These two abilities allow an individual! to make more effective
decisions about the best course of action in various situations.
Regulation of emotion is conceptualized in terms of both self and others as well
(Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Regulation of one's own emotions can be done through first
gathering information about the situations and individuals that «elicit various emotions, and
35
then making conscious decisions about what situations to be in and what associates to
choose. One can also regulate emotions through the way he or she evaluates a particular
mood or emotion. For example, a negative mood that is perceived as unacceptable and long-
lasting will be much more debilitating than one that is perceived as reasonable and
temporary. Emotionally intelligent individuals can regulate the emotions of others as well,
both positively and negatively. For example, a charismatic speaker can motivate and inspire
others, and a caring associate can encourage and boost the morale of someone who is down.
Conversely, people can manipulate others' emotions maliciously if they so choose.
Salovey and Mayer (1990) described four main ways in which individuals can utilize
emotion in order to deal with difficult situations and solve problems; flexible planning,
creative thinking, mood redirected attention, and motivation. Specifically, shifts in mood
may allow people to be flexible in thinking about the future and consider a wider range of
likely outcomes. Mayer and Salovey (1993) suggested that individuals who experience
substantial mood swings may have higher emotional intelligence, but this conjecture has yet
to be tested. They asserted that these individuals have experience with a wider range of
emotions, and therefore may be more emotionally fluent. Furthermore, dramatic changes in
mood should also be associated with a wide range of expectations regarding future events,
thereby enhancing their ability to generate a greater variety of possibilities about future plans
and outcomes. Positive mood can have an impact on cognitive organization and an
individual's ability to utilize information in memory, thereby permitting creative thinking
and enhancing problem solving abilities (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Individuals can use their
awareness of their emotions to make optimal decisions about what current situations or
36
events are most in need of their immediate attention. Finally, moods and emotions can be
channeled into persistence in challenging situations.
In general, individuals with higher emotional intelligence are more likely to integrate
emotional considerations into decision making, to be respectful of their own internal
experience and that of others, and to be more creative and flexible in formulating possible
solutions to vexing problems (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Emotional intelligence has been
found to have strong positive correlations with optimism (Schutte et al., 1998), and Salovey
and Mayer (1990) have asserted that emotional intelligence can be thought of as synonymous
with at least a limited level of positive mental health. They later expanded their concept of
emotional intelligence by adding an emphasis on potential for intellectual and emotional
growth, and identifying stages of abilities that are mastered sequentially (Mayer & Salovey,
1997).
The relationship between emotional intelligence and other more traditional measures
of intelligence is unclear. Salovey and Mayer (1990) originally made no claims on the
matter, but later suggested that defining emotional intelligence as involving a series of mental
abilities qualifies it as a form of intelligence (Mayer & Salovey, 1993), and more recently
predicted that emotional intelligence should be related to but distinct from other types of
intelligence (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). Schutte et al. (1990) found emotional intelligence to
longitudinally predict grade point average, but to have no relationship with SAT scores.
Mayer and Geher (1996), however, did find a relationship between success on an emotional
intelligence task and self-reported SAT scores.
Little research has been done directly in the area of emotional intelligence, because of
its relative youth as a psychological construct. One component that has received some
37
attention is an individual's ability to perceive emotions in the same way that people in
general do. Mayer, DiPaolo, and Salovey (1990) found that the ability to extract
consensually agreed upon emotional information from faces, colors and abstract designs was
related to empathy, which has been described as central to emotional intelligence (Mayer &
Salovey, 1993). Mayer and Geher (1996) investigated individuals' abilities to infer a target's
emotions from his or her stated thoughts. They used two criterion variables for evaluating
participants' accuracy, the target's report of his or her emotions, and the group consensus of
the target's emotions; however, they found no relationship between the two criterion
variables. Nevertheless, they found that agreement with either of the criteria correlated
positively with self-reported empathy and negatively with a measure of defensiveness.
Although empirically tapping into the components of emotional intelligence has proven a
challenging task, it does appear that the construct consists largely of abilities that can be
measured using specific tasks (Mayer et al., 1990).
Issues of Overlap
As made evident by this review, the dimensions under consideration in this study
exhibit a high degree of overlap with one another. Cozzarelli (1993) found that scores on
measures of self-esteem, optimism, and perceived control were highly correlated, and that
while any one of the three alone accounted for approximately 20% of the variance in self-
efficacy beliefs, the combination of all three accounted for only 27%. This led her to
conclude that the three attributes reflected the same underlying "personal resource" (p. 1233).
Similarly, Wanberg (1997) found high correlations between these three constructs, and
combined them to form a composite measure of "resilient personality" (p. 738) to avoid
statistical multicollinearity. However, Cozzarelli observed enough exceptions in her
38
findings to conclude that in particular situations, these attributes may individually retain
small but unique relationships with specific outcomes.
Judge, Erez and Bono (1998) found evidence for a unified factor, termed "positive
self-concept," that was composed of self-efficacy, self-esteem, locus of control, and
emotional stability (or non-Neuroticism). Individuals who possess a positive self-concept are
more likely to evaluate themselves positively and be accepting of their identity. Positive
self-concept is positively related to managers' career success and ability to cope with
organizational change (Judge et al., 1999). Similarly, Judge et al. (1997) introduced the
concept of "core self-evaluations," which consists primarily of self-esteem and generalized
self-efficacy, and secondarily of locus of control and non-Neuroticism. Core self-evaluations
are described as fundamental beliefs that individuals hold about themselves and their
functioning in the world, and that have a "top-down" influence on self-appraisals in specific
situations. In other words, core self-evaluations influence all specific evaluations of oneself,
rather than being the cumulative result of them. Judge, Bono, and Locke (2000) found core
self-evaluations to be relatively stable over a period of up to 30 years, beginning in early
adolescence. Core self-evaluations have been reported to have consistent effects on job
satisfaction apart from the characteristics of the job itself (Judge, Locke, et al., 1998), even
when the measures of core evaluations were taken 30 years previous to the assessment of job
satisfaction (Judge et al., 2000).
The Current Study
All of the constructs under investigation in the current study share an important
common implication: they are related to healthy human functioning. Extensive theoretical
formulations and empirical evidence illustrate the strong connections among these traits and
39
characteristics, and support the conceptualization of a broad dimension of adaptability as
their common foundation. As has been demonstrated, the traits examined in the current study
are strongly related; in other words, individuals who exhibit one of these characteristics tend
to exhibit the others as well. These individuals have also been shown to adapt more
effectively to both the changing and the enduring circumstances of life. The primary purpose
of the current research is to closely examine the complex relationships between the variables
in question, gaining further insight into their overlap in the area of human functioning and
adaptability.
An important part of this objective is the investigation of differing perspectives
regarding the manner in which each of the constructs relates to the others and contributes to
human functioning. It is quite evident from the literature that the nature of the overlap
between many of these constructs is unclear, and in some cases, a topic of ongoing
controversy. For example, the question of whether optimism is a distinct and independent
construct remains answered (see Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998), as do questions regarding the
usefulness of the conceptualization of self-efficacy as a generalized attribute (see Gist &
Mitchell, 1992). These questions are addressed in the current research, including the
examination of self-efficacy on both general and domain-specific levels.
A secondary purpose of the current study is the exploratory examination of the
developing concept of emotional intelligence. With the exception of the construct of
optimism, no known research has examined the relation between emotional intelligence and
the variables in question. Since emotional intelligence is considered to be related to effective
human functioning (Salovey & Mayer, 1990), its relation with other variables associated with
human functioning is an important empirical question.
40
A final purpose of the current study is to investigate the relative predictive ability of
the variables in question with regard to a behavioral measure of success that is particularly
germane to college students, academic success (as measured by GPA and. ACT scores).
Although this is hardly a measure of human adaptability in general, it can provide insight into
the relative potency of these characteristics in contributing to success in college.
Several studies have examined the combination of factors into larger constructs
related to human adaptability (e.g., Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998; Judge et al., 1997); others
have investigated the problematic overlap between some of the variables under consideration
(e.g., Smith et al., 1989). However, no study to date has attempted to investigate the overlap
and distinctiveness among all of the variables to be examined in the current study. Because it
is evident that they are all important contributors to the understanding of healthy human
functioning, this is a much needed endeavor. Investigation of all of these constructs in a
single study can also allow for simultaneous exploration of a variety of issues of problematic
conceptual and empirical overlap. Furthermore, the current study allows for the concurrent
examination of all of these variables with regard to (1) emotional intelligence, a rather broad
measure of human functioning that has received relatively little empirical attention, and (2) a
simple measure of academic success.
Hypotheses
In general, it is predicted that the variables under consideration in the present study
will all overlap to some degree, demonstrating their common contribution to human
adaptability. It is expected that the degree of overlap between the constructs will be
substantial, but that they will retain enough unique variation to support their
conceptualization as independent constructs. The complexity of the constructs, including
41
specific theoretical considerations and empirical evidence, necessitate the formulation of a
variety of detailed hypotheses regarding relations between specific variables; these are
outlined below. For the purpose of disconfirmation, several other variables that are expected
to be unrelated or only weakly associated with the underlying dimension of adaptability are
examined as well. These include social desirability, and the Big Five factors Openness,
Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness.
For the purpose of examining the extent to which all variables in the current study
overlap, a factor analysis will be performed. It is predicted that the variables conceptualized
as central to the construct "adaptability" will load on a single factor; these variables include
generalized self-efficacy, self-esteem, locus of control, optimism, positive and negative
affect, Extraversion, Neuroticism, and emotional intelligence. It is predicted that confidence
for the six Holland themes will load on one or more separate factors, as they are not
conceptualized as central to adaptability. Finally, it is predicted that Openness,
Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness will load on one or more separate factors as well.
Hypothesis 1
It is predicted that generalized self-efficacy will be related to self-efficacy for the six
Holland (1997) themes (see Figure 1). Although task-specific self-efficacy in different
domains has been shown to be relatively unrelated (Lent et al., 1986), it is expected that
generalized self-efficacy will tap into basic resources that allow individuals to have higher
efficacy expectations across domains. This is suggested by Judge et al.'s (1997) formulation
of the concept of generalized self-efficacy and by Betz and Klein's (1996) findings. In
addition, it is predicted that generalized self-efficacy will be more strongly related to the
42
Realistic confidence
Investigative confidence
Artistic confidence
>- Social confidence
>- Enterprising confidence
Conventional confidence
Sum of RIASEC confidence
Figure 1. Hypothesis 1
average of scores for the six Holland themes than to any individual Holland theme. This is
based on Judge, Locke et al.'s (1998) suggestion that an average of diverse task-specific self-
efficacy scores should be related to generalized self-efficacy. Although self-efficacy for a
Holland theme indicates self-efficacy for more than one specific task, it covers a narrow
domain of highly related tasks.
Hypothesis 2
It is predicted that self-efficacy, locus of control, self-esteem, optimism, and
Neuroticism will all be at least moderately related to one another (see Figure 2). All relations
are predicted to be positive with the exception of Neuroticism, which is expected to relate
negatively to the other four constructs. This hypothesis is based on several conceptual
formulations that have combined these characteristics in a theoretically and empirically
meaningful manner. First of all, the "core self-evaluations" and "positive self-concept" that
have been developed and tested empirically by Judge and his colleagues (Judge et al., 2000;
43
Self-esteem
t Self-efficacy-* Generalized Any specific
*" RIASEC confidence
Locus of Control
I Non-Neuroticism
Figure 2. Hypothesis 2
Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998; Judge et al., 1997; Judge, Locke et al., 1998; Judge et al., 1999)
include self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and non-neuroticism (or
emotional stability). These traits have been found to form a reliably unified factor, and to
predict a variety of indicators of adaptability. Secondly, Wanberg (1997) found a factor
including self-esteem, locus of control, and optimism to predict better coping in a stressful
situation. Major et al. (1998), who named this factor "resilient personality resources,"
reported that it was predictive of higher self-efficacy and lower distress with regard to a
stressful situation.
Hypothesis 2a. Generalized self-efficacy is conceptually related to locus of control,
because of their similar focus on a belief in the ability to influence important life events
(Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998; Judge, Locke, et al., 1998; Lennings, 1994; Phillips & Gully,
1997). In addition, as Gist (1987) has suggested, individuals with an internal locus of control
respond more positively to Bandura's (1977,1982) sources of efficacy information and
require fewer success experiences to raise their self-efficacy, and therefore are more likely to
have higher self-efficacy across domains; this conjecture has been supported by research
44
(Martocchio & Dulebohn, 1994; Matsui et al., 1990). It is predicted that the relation between
generalized self-efficacy and locus of control will be especially strong because of these
reasons and because they are the only two variables under consideration that are directly
related to personal agency, an important point according to social cognitive theory (Bandura,
1989).
Hypothesis 2b. It is predicted that self-efficacy for any one of the six Holland themes
will not be related to locus of control as strongly as generalized self-efficacy will. Unlike
generalized self-efficacy, task-specific self-efficacy is quite conceptually distinct from locus
of control (Judge, Locke, et al., 1998). Holland theme self-efficacy is not task-specific per
se, but it does cover a narrower domain of behavior than generalized self-efficacy, and
therefore should not be as closely related to locus of control.
Hypothesis 2c. Self-efficacy theory would predict that self-efficacy should be related
to optimism because individuals with high self-efficacy visualize and focus on success
scenarios, whereas those with low self-efficacy focus on what is likely to go wrong (Bandura,
1993). No predictions are being made regarding differential strength of the relations between
the two forms of self-efficacy and optimism. As described previously, optimism has also
been shown to relate strongly to locus of control, self-esteem, and Neuroticism, as well as
other variables (Cozzarelli, 1993; Judge et al., 1997). It is predicted that these findings will
be replicated, but that there will be sufficient evidence to support the identification of
optimism as an independent and meaningful construct as maintained by Scheier and Carver
(1985; Carver & Scheier, 1994) and others.
Hypothesis 2d. Self-efficacy is also conceptually related to self-esteem in important
ways; specifically, beliefs about abilities in personally meaningful domains affect feelings of
45
self-worth, which are fundamental to self-esteem (Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998; Maddux,
1995). Because generalized self-efficacy encompasses more life domains and therefore is
more likely to consistently tap into areas that are central to an individual's self-concept than
Holland theme self-efficacy, it is expected that generalized self-efficacy will show a stronger
relation with self-esteem than will self-efficacy for any one of the Holland themes.
Hypothesis 2e. There is no theoretical or conceptual basis to predict that locus of
control, self-esteem, and Neuroticism will exhibit relations with one another above and
beyond what can be explained by the relations described above. The relations that are
expected between these three variables should be fully accounted for by their overlap with
self-efficacy and optimism.
Hypothesis 3
It is predicted that both self-efficacy and positive affect will be related to
Extraversion, but that negative affect will not (see Figure 3).
Enterprising confidence Positive Affect
Social confidence
Extraversion Conventional confidence
Generalized Self-efficacy
Investigative confidence
Negative Affect
Figure 3. Hypothesis 3
46
Hypothesis 3 a. The relation between Extraversion and positive affect is well-
established empirically (Allik & Realo, 1997; Berry & Hansen, 1996; McFatter, 1994; Meyer
& Shack, 1989) and fundamental to theoretical formulations of the structure of affect (Costa
& McCrae, 1992; Watson et al., 1988). One of the lines of evidence for the
conceptualization of positive and negative affect as independent dimensions is that positive
affect is related to Extraversion but negative affect is not (Allik & Realo, 1997; Diener &
Emmons, 1985; Watson et al., 1999); it is expected that this finding will be replicated.
Hypothesis 3b. It is predicted that Extraversion and generalized self-efficacy will be
related based on their common conceptual characteristics of assertiveness and agency (John
& Srivastava, 1999; Judge et al., 1997), a connection that is supported empirically (Bernard
et al., 1996). However, it is predicted that Extraversion will relate positively with self-
efficacy for the Social and Enterprising Holland themes and negatively or not at all with self-
efficacy for the Investigative and Conventional themes, in replication of past research (Tuel
& Betz, 1998). Although Extraversion is expected to relate to general confidence across
domains, there are specific domains (such as those encompassed by the Investigative and
Conventional themes) that are not necessarily associated with Extraversion.
Hypothesis 4
It is predicted that negative affect will have a strong positive relationship with
Neuroticism but will be only slightly negatively related to positive affect. It is predicted that
self-esteem will be positively related to positive affect and negatively related to negative
affect (see Figure 4).
Hypothesis 4a. Like the relation between Extraversion and positive affect, the
association between Neuroticism and negative affect is fundamental to theory regarding the
47
Positive affect
Negative affect
Neuroticism
Self-esteem
Figure 4. Hypothesis 4
structure of affect (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Watson et al., 1988) and has been strongly
supported by research (Allik & Realo, 1997; Berry & Hansen, 1996; Rusting & Larsen,
1997).
Hypothesis 4b. Because I am using Watson and Tellegen's (1985) concepts of
positive and negative affect in which both are also activated affect and therefore not bipolar
opposites, positive and negative affect should be relatively unrelated. This conjecture has
been supported by substantial research as well (Allik & Realo, 1997; Berry & Hansen, 1996;
Diener & Emmons, 1985; Diener et al., 1995; Watson & Clark, 1997; Watson et al., 1988;
Watson et al., 1999).
Hypothesis 4c. The connection between positive and negative affect and self-esteem
appears complex. Self-esteem has been regarded as highly related to positive affect
conceptually (Judge et al., 1997; Judge, Locke et al., 1998), although some research has not
supported this statement (e.g., Kernis, 1993). Brown and Dutton (1995) found both positive
and negative affect to be strongly related to self-esteem (with opposite valences), and
Campbell and Lavallee (1993) reported a connection between low self-esteem and frequency
48
of mood swings. In spite of these ambiguous findings, conceptual characterizations of self-
esteem (e.g., Judge et al., 1996) lead to the prediction that self-esteem will exhibit a positive
relation to positive affect and a negative relation to negative affect.
Hypothesis 5
It is predicted that emotional intelligence will be positively related to both positive
affect and negative affect, and to optimism (see Figure 5). Mayer and Salovey (1993)
proposed that individuals who experience substantial mood swings, or both positive and
negative affect, would have higher emotional intelligence; the current research will be the
first known test of this conjecture. Salovey and Mayer (1990) suggested that emotional
intelligence could be thought of as a type of positive mental health. None of the variables
under consideration are direct measures of mental health, although all are considered to be
related to mental health. The only construct that has been reported to relate empirically to
emotional intelligence is optimism (Schutte et al., 1998); this is the basis for the proposed
relation between emotional intelligence and optimism. However, exploratory investigation
into emotional intelligence's connections with the other constructs will be of interest in the
current study.
Positive Affect
Emotional Intelligence Negative Affect
Optimism
Figure 5. Hypothesis 5
49
Hypothesis 6
It is predicted that both forms of self-efficacy will be positively related to ACT scores
and GPA (see Figure 6). Mastery experiences is the most potent source of efficacy
information (Bandura, 1999); higher ACT scores and GPA are indicative of greater academic
success. Self-efficacy, in turn, predicts academic performance (Lent et al., 1984, 1986, 1987;
Multon et al., 1991). In other words, there is reciprocal relationship between self-efficacy
and academic success that is strongly grounded in self-efficacy theory and well supported by
research; it is expected that this connection will be supported by all measures of self-efficacy
in the current study.
Generalized self-efficacy
RIASEC confidence
GPA
ACT scores
Figure 6. Hypothesis 6
50
METHOD
Participants and Procedure
Participants were 316 students (211 female, 105 male) in psychology classes at Iowa
State University who received extra credit points for their voluntary participation. Ten of the
participants were African American, one was American Indian, 16 were Asian or Pacific
Islander, 275 were Caucasian, eight were Latino/a, four indicated "other," and two did not
provide a response. A majority of the participants were single (93.4%) first-year students
(58.9%). Over 75% of participants had selected a major in one of four university colleges,
Liberal Arts and Sciences (36.4%), Education (17.7%), Engineering (10.8%), or Business
(10.1%), although all university colleges were represented in the sample. Participants were
administered a battery of self-report inventories (described below) in groups of 5-20. Current
cumulative GPA and ACT scores were obtained from the university. Among the sample,
only 191 women and 92 men had ACT scores on record; those who did not have ACT scores
were students who transferred from another university.
Measures
The Self-Efficacv Scale (SES)
The SES (Sherer et al., 1982) was designed to assess perceived self-efficacy, and
consists of 30 items to which the participant responds on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from
1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). The traditional format for measurement of self-
efficacy is to assess self-efficacy magnitude through yes-no questions regarding specific
tasks, and then to assess strength by asking for a percentage of confidence in that answer
(Lee & Bobko, 1994). However, it has been demonstrated that a Likert-type format is an
51
equally reliable and valid method by which to measure self-efficacy (Maurer & Pierce,
1998).
The SES was developed through factor analysis and contains two subscales, General
Self-Efficacy (17 items) and Social Self-Efficacy (six items). Only the General Self-Efficacy
subscale was used in the current study because social self-efficacy is not directly of interest
here and because validity and usefulness of the Social Self-Efficacy subscale has been
questioned (Sherer & Adams, 1983). The SES has been found to have moderate positive
correlations with self-esteem, locus of control, personal adjustment, and social adjustment, as
well as self-reported success in vocational, educational, and military domains (Sherer &
Adams, 1983; Sherer et al., 1982). Internal reliability of the General Self-Efficacy subscale
has been reported as a Cronbach's alpha of .86 (Sherer et al., 1982). In the current study,
reliability was .87.
Strong Interest Inventory (SID
The SII is one of the most widely used instruments in both career counseling research
and practice (Harmon, Hansen, Borgen, & Hammer, 1994). It is used to assess interests in
occupations, ranging in scope from very broad areas such as preferred environments and type
of interpersonal interaction to specific jobs and job requirements. The scales of the 1994
revision of the SII were normed on the General Reference Sample, 18,951 employed women
and men who were selected on the basis of a set of criteria including job satisfaction, job
experience, typicality of job description, and age.
The SU consists of six General Occupational Themes, 25 Basic Interest Scales, 211
Occupational Scales, and four Personal Style Scales. The General Occupational Themes
measure the six Holland (1997) vocational interest themes, Realistic, Investigative, Artistic,
52
Social, Enterprising, and Conventional. These are reported as standardized scores, with
means of 50 and standard deviations of 10 (Harmon et al., 1994). External validity of the
General Occupational Themes has been demonstrated through their ability to predict
occupational choice (Donnay & Borgen, 1996). Internal consistency reliabilities have been
reported to range from .90 for Social to .94 for Artistic; test-retest reliabilities over 3- to 6-
month intervals range from .84 for Enterprising to .92 for Realistic (Harmon et al., 1994). In
the current study, internal consistencies as measured by Cronbach's alpha were as follows:
.93 for Realistic, .88 for Investigative, .94 for Artistic, .91 for Social, .89 for Enterprising,
and .89 for Conventional.
The Skills Confidence Inventory CSCD
The SCI (Betz, Borgen, & Harmon, 1996) was designed to assess self-efficacy for
each of the six Holland (1997) themes. It was developed from an initial pool of 151 items,
which were then trimmed to form six 10-item scales, based on data from over 1,800 college
students and employed adults (Betz, Harmon, & Borgen, 1996). Internal consistency
reliabilities have been reported to range from .84 for the Enterprising theme to .88 for the
Realistic theme. Parsons and Betz (1998) reported three-week test-retest reliabilities ranging
from .83 for the Realistic theme to .87 for the Social theme. The SCI has been shown to
accurately predict occupational group membership based on the Holland interest themes
corresponding with each occupation (Donnay & Borgen, 1999; Harmon et al., 1996). In the
current study, internal consistencies as measured by Cronbach's alpha were as follows: .85
for Realistic, .87 for Investigative, .87 for Artistic, .87 for Social, .85 for Enterprising, and
.87 for Conventional.
The NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI)
The NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is an abbreviated form of the NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO PI; Costa & McCrae, 1985), and is designed to measure the Big
Five personality dimensions. The NEO-FFI was constructed based on factor analysis of the
NEO PI items; for each of the five scales, twelve items were selected that loaded highly on
the corresponding factor, resulting in a 60-item inventory. The Extraversion and Neuroticism
scales on the NEO-FFI are the only ones of interest in the current study; they have been
reported to correlate with the corresponding scales on the NEO PI-R at .90 and .92,
respectively. The mean internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha) across the five
NEO-FFI scales was reported to be .78; coefficients for the Extraversion and Neuroticism
scales were .77 and .86, respectively (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Similar internal consistency
has been reported elsewhere; John and Srivastava (1999) reported a mean Cronbach's alpha
of .79, with coefficients of .78 and .85 for the Extraversion and Neuroticism scales,
respectively. Test-retest reliability over a three-month period has been reported at .79 for
both Extraversion and Neuroticism (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Corrected pairwise convergent
validities with two other measures of the Big Five have been reported as correlations of .79
and .83 for Extraversion, and .82 and .90 for Neuroticism (John & Srivastava, 1999).
The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (TANAS)
The PANAS (Watson et al., 1988) consists of two 10-item scales. The Positive
Affect (PA) scale is comprised of the items active, alert, attentive, determined, enthusiastic,
excited, inspired, interested, proud, and strong. The Negative Affect (NA) scale is comprised
of the items afraid, ashamed, distressed, guilty, hostile, irritable, jittery, nervous, scared, and
upset. The scales can be used to assess positive and negative affect for a variety of time
frames, ranging from "the present moment" to "the past year," as well as "in general."
Watson et al. (1988) reported that internal consistency reliability ranged from .84 to .87 for
NA and .86 to .90 for PA over a variety of temporal instructions. Test-retest reliability was
reported to increase as the reported time frame lengthens, from .47 and .39 for PA andNA,
respectively, for "today," to .63 and .60 for PA and NA, respectively, for "the past year." "In
general" ratings obtained the highest test-retest reliability, .68 and .71 for PA and NA,
respectively, establishing the reliability of the PANAS as a measure of trait affect.
Convergent validity was established by factor analyzing 60 mood descriptors and comparing
the PA and NA scales to the first two rotated factors; convergent correlations ranged from .89
to .95, whereas discriminant correlations ranged from -.02 to -.18. In the current study,
participants were instructed to indicate the extent to which they experienced each emotion
"during the past few weeks." Internal consistency reliability was .89 for PA and .88 for NA.
Internal!tv. Powerful Others, and Chance Scales
These three eight-item scales measure locus of control in terms of expectations that
control over important events is held by oneself (I), powerful others (P), or chance (C)
(Levenson, 1974). Respondents rate the items on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from -3
(strongly disagree) to +3 (strongly agree). Internal consistency has been reported as Kuder-
Richardson reliabilities of .64 for I, .77 for P, and .78 for C. Split-half (Spearman-Brown)
reliabilities were .62, .66, and .64, respectively. Test-retest reliabilities were .64, .74, and
.78, respectively (Levenson, 1974). P and C have been found to correlate moderately with
one another (.41 to .60) and to have an unclear relation to I (-.25 to .19) (Levenson, 1981).
As an indication of criterion validity, Rotter's (1966) Intemality-Extemality scale has been
reported to correlate positively with P (.25) and C (.56), and negatively with I (-.41). Finally,
55
it has been demonstrated that the three scales are negligibly related to the Marlowe-Crowne
Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964); correlations were .09 for I, .04 for P,
and .08 for C (Levenson, 1981). In the current study, internal consistency reliability was .73
for I, .73 for P, and .78 for C.
Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale
This homogeneous scale was designed to measure self-esteem, and consists of ten
items, five of which, are reverse scored (Rosenberg, 1965). Respondents rate the items on a
4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). It is the most
commonly used measure of self-esteem, and its validity is supported by considerable
empirical evidence (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991). Internal consistency reliability has been
reported to range from .77 to .88 (Cronbach's alpha). Rosenberg (1965) reported test-retest
reliability of .85; later studies have reported correlations between .82 and .85 for a 1-2 week
interval (Blascovich. & Tomaka, 1991). Moderate to high correlations with other measures of
self-esteem have been reported as well. In the current study, internal consistency reliability
was .89.
The Life Orientation Test-Revised fLOT-R)
The original LOT (Scheier & Carver, 1985) was a 12-item (including four filler
items) self-report measure assessing optimism in the form of generalized expectancies for
positive versus negative outcomes. Internal reliability has been measured as a Cronbach's
alpha of .82 (Scheier et al., 1994). Scheier et al. (1994) revised the LOT to create a more
homogeneous scale and eliminate potential overlap with measures of positive reinterpretation
and growth. They removed two items from the scale that addressed ways of reacting to
problems and stress rather than explicitly assessing the expectation of positive outcomes.
56
The resulting LOT-R consisted of three positively keyed items, three negatively keyed items,
and four filler items. Internal reliability of the LOT-R was reported by Scheier et al. (1994)
as a Cronbach's alpha of .78; test-retest reliability ranged from .56 to .79. The LOT-R was
found to correlate highly (.95) with the original LOT, and moderately with measures of self-
mastery (.48), trait anxiety (-.53), self-esteem (.50), and Neuroticism (-.36). The original
LOT (Scheier & Carver, 1985) correlated .26 with social desirability. In the current study,
internal consistency reliability was .80.
The Emotional Intelligence Scale
This 33-item scale was designed to assess emotional intelligence as conceptualized by
Salovey and Mayer (1990) (Schutte et al., 1998). It is a homogeneous scale that was
constructed through factor analysis. Schutte et al. (1998) reported internal consistency
reliability coefficients of .90 with the initial test development sample of 346 college students
and working adults, and .87 with a replication sample of 32 college students. Two-week test-
retest reliability was .78. The scale was reported to correlate moderately with measures that
assess various aspects of awareness and expression of emotion, outlook on life, depressed
mood, and ability to regulate emotions and impulsivity. In the current study, internal
consistency reliability was .90.
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale
This scale was designed to identify individuals who tend to describe themselves in an
overly positive light, especially in terms of what is considered socially acceptable (Crowne &
Marlowe, 1964). Internal consistency reliability was reported as a KR-20 coefficient of .88.
Test-retest reliability over a one-month period was .88. This scale is included in the current
study because many of the constructs under consideration include characteristics that carry
57
socially-prescribed value; inclusion of this scale can allow for evaluation of the degree to
which findings are due to a socially desirable response set. In the current study, internal
consistency reliability was .92.
58
RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses
Means and standard deviations for all variables under consideration are reported
separately by gender in Table 1; means and standard deviations for the three Big Five
variables used for disconfirmation are displayed as well. Ns vary slightly because of
incomplete data due to participant failure to complete all items. Scale scores for which over
10% of items were not completed were excluded from the data set. Scale scores for which at
least 90% of items were completed were prorated for missing data.
Mean gender differences are also reported in Table 1. The experiment-wise alpha
level was set at .05; because 24 comparisons were made, p < .002 is reported as a significant
difference. Gender differences were found on Extraversion, Agreeableness, and
Conscientiousness, with women scoring higher on all three. Gender differences were also
found for Realistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional confidence, with women scoring
higher on Social and men scoring higher on the other three. There were significant gender
differences on GPA and ACT score; in accord with many previous studies of college
students, women were higher on GPA but men were higher on ACT score. Although
information about any gender differences in the relationships examined in the current study
would be highly valuable, such an investigation is outside the scope of the current research.
All subsequent results will be reported with women and men combined.
Factor Analysis
A factor analysis was performed using the principal axis method with varimax
rotation to test the general hypothesis that there would be evidence for an underlying
common dimension of adaptability. The number of factors extracted was determined by
59
Table 1. Means and Equality of Means for Men and Women
Women Men Variables M SD n M SD n t
Neuroticism1 21.57 7.92 209 20.34 8.24 104 1.28 Extraversiona 33.07 5.42 209 30.57 6.23 104 3.65* Openness" 27.50 5.27 209 27.03 5.48 104 .74 Agreeablenessa 33.00 5.94 209 29.37 6.14 104 5.04* Conscientiousness3 33.00 5.91 209 30.61 6.79 104 3.21* Emotional Intell.a 127.82 11.99 203 124.08 1*4.71 99 2.36 Ihtemality Scale3 29.63 4.37 204 29.60 4.33 101 .04 Powerful Others3 20.48 4.23 206 21.40 4.79 103 -1.73 Chance Scale3 20.46 4.73 206 21.04 4.79 103 -.97 Optimism6 22.07 3.66 210 21.31 4.55 105 1.49 Positive Affect3 36.46 7.01 211 36.40 7.05 105 .08 Negative Affect3 22.49 7.55 211 22.65 7.30 105 -.18 Self-Esteem Scale3 31.90 5.14 210 33.43 4.84 104 -2.54 Self-Efficacy Scale6 62.64 7.86 209 62.00 9.43 105 .60 Realistic Conf.b 3.18 .74 209 3.56 .85 104 -3.94* Investigative Conf.b 3.06 .87 209 3.35 .75 104 -3.08 Artistic Confidence3 3.22 .83 209 3.08 .79 104 1.43 Social Confidence3 3.89 .68 209 3.61 .75 104 3.29* Enterprising Conf.3 3.26 .72 209 3.54 .74 104 -3.23* Conventional Conf.3 3.04 .75 209 3.56 .76 104 -5.80* SCI Average Score3 3.28 .53 209 3.45 .51 104 -2.83 Social Desirability3 15.90 5.66 207 17.04 14.31 102 -1.00 ACT Score3 23.34 3.40 191 24.92 35.75 92 -3.56* GPA3 3.02 .57 210 2.77 .62 105 3.49*
aValues are based on /-tests for independent samples with equal variances. 'Values are based on /-tests for independent samples with unequal 'variances. *p < .002 (Experiment-wise p < .05).
scree plots and eigenvalues. A five factor solution emerged; the results of this analysis are
shown in Table 2. Variables loading most strongly on the first factor included Neuroticism,
optimism, Chance, self-esteem, Powerful Others, and negative affe«ct. Generalized self-
efficacy had a factor loading of .47 on the first factor, but was more strongly associated with
60
Table 2. Principal Axis Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation for Variables of Interest
Factor Variable la 2b 3 4 5
Neuroticism -.75 -.31 .16 Optimism .65 .40 Chance -.64 -.15 -.14 -.12 Self-Esteem .63 .36 .16 -.14 Powerful Others -.62 .10 -.23 -.14 Negative Affect -.61 -.19 Emotional Intelligence .26 .65 .10 .37 .13 Positive Affect .27 .62 .16 Extraversion .17 .60 -.19 .12 Enterprising Conf. .11 .55 .42 .18 -.35 Self-Efficacy Scale .47 .50 .29 .37 Intemality .13 .39 .11 .14 Conventional Conf. .18 .77 Realistic Conf. .72 .23 Investigative Conf. .68 .21 .13 Openness .13 .68 Artistic Confidence .19 .26 .68 Social Confidence .43 .50 Agreeableness .29 -.14 .48 Conscientiousness .17 .38 .21 -.13 .47
Eigenvalue 3.09 2.96 2.12 1.62 .86 Variance accounted for 15% 13% 11% 8% 4%
Note. Only loadings greater than .10 are displayed. "Subjective Well-Being. bAgentic Adaptability.
the second factor. Variables loading most strongly on the second factor included emotional
intelligence, positive affect, Extraversion, Enterprising confidence, generalized self-efficacy,
and Intemality. Social confidence had a factor loading of .43 on the second factor, but was
more strongly associated with the fourth factor. These first two factors accounted for 29% of
the variance. The first factor was named Subjective Weil-Being, because it included the
61
presence of adaptive beliefs about oneself and about the world, and the absence of
maladaptive characteristics and beliefs. The second factor was labeled Agentic Adaptability,
because it included variables that are more active, with a focus on personal agency and the
ability to affect one's environment. Variables loading on the third factor included
Conventional, Realistic, and Investigative confidence. Enterprising confidence had a factor
loading of .42 on the third factor, but was more strongly associated with the second factor.
Variables loading on the fourth factor included Openness and Artistic and Social confidence.
Variables loading on the fifth factor included Agreeableness and Conscientiousness.
Correlational Analyses
Correlations between generalized self-efficacy and the six Holland theme self-
efficacies (including the average of the six) are reported in Table 3. The Williams
Table 3. Correlations Between Self-Efficacy Variables, Self-Esteem, and Locus of Control
Hypothesis 1
Variable Self- Self-
Efficacy Esteem Intemality Chance Powerful Others
Self-Efficacy .51 . 11 .17 .03 .12 .30 .20 .22
.41
.08
.15
.07
.11
.19
.17
.19
-.45 -.07 -.13 -.09 -.13 -.18
-.12 -.18
-.39 .00
-.07 -.07 -.17 -.05 .01 -.08
Realistic .19 .33 .17 .20 .33 .29 .38
Investigative Artistic Social Enterprising Conventional Avg. of SCI
Note. For correlations with Self-Efficacy and Self-Esteem, n = 313. For correlations with Intemality, Chance, and Powerful Others, n — 305. Correlations of at least .30 are bold for emphasis.
62
modification of the Hotelling test (Kenny, 1987) was used to test tlie prediction that
generalized self-efficacy would be more strongly related to the average of scores for the six
Holland themes than to any individual Holland theme. Specifically, this procedure tests for
differences between two correlations. It was found that the correlation between generalized
self-efficacy and the average of Holland theme self-efficacy (r = .58) was significantly larger
than the correlations between generalized self-efficacy and the Realistic theme (r — .19;
*[310] =-4.81 ,/? < .001), the Artistic theme (r = .17; *[310] = -5.07, p < .001), the Social
theme (r = .20; *[310] = -3.28,/? < .001), and the Conventional theme (r = .29; *[310] = -2.06,
p < .05). The correlation between generalized self-efficacy and the average of Holland theme
self-efficacy (r = .38) was not significantly different from the correlations between
generalized self-efficacy and the Investigative theme (r= .33; *[310] =-1.05,/? < .15) or the
Enterprising theme (r = .33; *[310] =-1.20,/? < .15).
Multiple Regression Analyses
Multiple regression analyses were performed to expand upon the understanding of the
relation between Holland theme self-efficacy and generalized self-efficacy. All six Holland
scores were entered simultaneously into an equation predicting generalized self-efficacy.
The only significant predictors of generalized self-efficacy were Lrvestigative confidence (/3
= .27,/? < .001) and Enterprising confidence (/3 = .21, p < .01). The results are displayed in
Table 4.
Hypothesis 2
Correlational Analyses
Correlations among generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, self-esteem, optimism,
and Neuroticism are displayed in Table 5. Partial correlations controlling for social
63
Table 4. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Generalized Self-efficacy by Holland Theme Self-Efficacy (n = 313)
Variable B SE B (3
Realistic Confidence -.07 .07 -.07 Investigative Confidence .27 .07 .27** Artistic Confidence -.04 .07 -.04 Social Confidence .14 .07 .12 Enterprising Confidence .24 .08 .21* Conventional Confidence .09 .08 .09
Note. R2 = .19. *p < .005. **p < .001.
Table 5. Intercorrelations Among Five Dispositional Variables
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Neuroticism -.17 .48 .37 -.58 -.69 -.56 2. Intemality -.17 — -.24 -.07 .35 .20 .40 3. Chance .48 -.24 — .62 -.53 -.38 -.45 4. Powerful Others .38 -.06 .62 — -.42 -.36 -.40 5. Optimism -.59 .34 -.53 -.43 — .57 .53 6. Self-Esteem -.69 .19 -.38 -.36 .58 — .51 7. Self-Efficacy -.57 .41 -.45 -.39 .53 .51 —
Note. Numbers below the diagonal are bivariate correlations (ns range from 304 to 314). Numbers above the diagonal are partial correlations controlling for social desirability (n = 300). All correlations are significant at/» < .01 or less, except the correlation between Intemality and Powerful Others.
64
desirability were calculated; it appears that social desirability had no effect on the
correlations between these constructs. These partial correlations are also displayed in Table
5.
Correlations between Holland theme self-efficacy, generalized self-efficacy, locus of
control, and self-esteem, are displayed in Table 3. The Williams modification of the
Hotelling test (Kenny, 1987) was used to test the prediction that generalized self-efficacy
would be more strongly related to both self-esteem and locus of control than any individual
Holland theme would be. It was found that the correlation between self-esteem and
generalized self-efficacy (r = .51) was significantly larger than the correlation between self-
esteem and the Enterprising theme (r = .30; *[302] = -3.68, p < .001). Because Enterprising's
correlation with self-esteem was the largest of the Holland codes and substantially larger than
the next largest one (Conventional theme, r = .20), and because of the highly significant
difference, it can safely be assumed that the prediction regarding self-esteem and the various
forms of self-efficacy is supported.
Regarding locus of control, it was found that the correlation between the Intemality
Scale and generalized self-efficacy (r = .41) was significantly larger than the correlation
between Intemality and the Enterprising theme (r = .19; *[302] = -3.56,p < .001). It was
found that the correlation between the Chance scale and generalized self-efficacy (r = -.45)
was significantly larger than the correlation between Chance and the Enterprising theme (r =
-.18; *[302] = 4.38, p < .001). It was found that the correlation between the Powerful Others
scale and generalized self-efficacy (r = -.39) was significantly larger than the correlation
between Powerful Others and the Social theme (r = -.17; *[302] = 3.14,/? < .001). Because
these three correlations were the largest between a facet of locus control and a Holland theme
65
and because of the highly significant difference, it can safely be assumed that the prediction
regarding locus of control and the various forms of self-efficacy is supported.
Partial correlations were calculated to answer the question of whether there is support
for optimism as a construct independent from Neuroticism, locus of control, self-esteem, and
generalized self-efficacy. Specifically, optimism was correlated with each variable
individually, while controlling for the other three. This is a very conservative test of
independence and the correlations were reduced dramatically. (See Table 6.) Nevertheless,
in most cases the correlation remained significant, supporting the argument that optimism is
Table 6. Partial Correlations of Optimism with Other Variables of Interest
Correlated Variable
Bivariate Correlation
Partial Correlation Controlling for
Neuroticism -.59** -.19* Intemality, Chance, Powerful Others, Self-Esteem, Self-Efficacy
Intemality .34** .23** Neuroticism, Self-Esteem, Self-Efficacy
Chance -.53** -.30** Neuroticism, Self-Esteem, Self-Efficacy
Powerful Others -.43** -.19* Neuroticism, Self-Esteem, Self-Efficacy
Self-Esteem .58** .24** Neuroticism, Intemality, Chance, Powerful Others, Self-Efficacy
Self-Efficacy .53** .11 Neuroticism, Intemality, Chance, Powerful Others, Self-Esteem
Note. For bivariate correlations, ns range from 304 to 314. For partial correlations, ns range from 296 to 298. *p < .005. **p<.001.
66
an independent construct. Only the correlation between optimism and generalized self-
efficacy fell below significance (r = .11) after this procedure.
Finally, partial correlations were used to address the prediction that any relations
between locus of control, self-esteem, and Neuroticism can be explained by their overlap
with self-efficacy and optimism. Self-esteem, Neuroticism, and the three facets of locus of
control were correlated with one another while controlling for the other two variables.
Although several correlations were drastically reduced from the bivariate correlations, the
correlation between Neuroticism and self-esteem remained high (r = -.48, p < .001);
therefore, the prediction that the relation between Neuroticism and self-esteem could be
explained by their overlap with self-efficacy and optimism was not supported. A comparison
of the bivariate and the partial correlations of interest are displayed in Table 7.
Table 7. Partial Correlations Between Variables of Interest, Controlling for Optimism and Self-Efficacy
Correlated Variables Bivariate Correlation Partial Correlation
Neuroticism and Intemality -.17* .16* Neuroticism and Chance .48** .17* Neuroticism and Powerful Others .38** .10 Neuroticism and Self-Esteem -.69** -.48** S elf-Esteem and Intemality .19* -.10 Self-Esteem and Chance -.38** -.04 Self-Esteem and Powerful Others -.36** -.09
Note. For bivariate correlations, ns range from 304 to 314. For partial correlations, n = 299. *p<.01.**p<.001.
67
Multiple Regression Analyses
Hierarchical regression analyses were used to examine the independence of optimism
further. For each equation predicting one of the personality variables in question, all other
variables were entered in the first step and optimism was entered in the second step.
Optimism made significant additional contributions to the prediction of Neuroticism (/3 = -
.17, p < .01), Intemality (/3 = .28, p < .001), Chance (/3 = -.33, p < .001), Powerful Others (j8 =
-.22, p < .01), and self-esteem (/3 = .24, p < .01). Optimism did not contribute only to the
prediction of generalized self-efficacy. The results of these regression analyses can be seen
in Tables 8-13.
Table 8. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Neuroticism by Other Personality Variables: Examining the Independence of Optimism (n = 303)
Variable R2 B SE B #
Step 1 .57 Intemality .15 .08 .08 Chance .34 .09 .21*** Powerful Others -.05 .09 -.03 Self-Esteem -.80 .07 -.51*** Self-Efficacy -.24 .05 -.25***
Step 2 .58 Intemality .20 .08 .11* Chance .27 .09 .16** Powerful Others -.07 .09 -.04 Self-Esteem -.70 .08 -.45*** Self-Efficacy -.22 .05 -.23*** Optimism -.35 .11 -17**
*p < .05. **p < .005. ***p < .001.
68
Table 9. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of the Internality Scale by Other Personality Variables: Examining the Independence of Optimism (n = 303)
Variable R2 B SE B 0
Step 1 .17 Self-Esteem .04 .06 .04 Self-Efficacy .23 .03 .44** Neuroticism .06 .04 .11
Step 2 .21 Self-Esteem -.03 .06 -.03 Self-Efficacy .19 .03 .37** Neuroticism .10 .04 .18* Optimism .30 .08 .28**
*p < .05. **p < .001.
Table 10. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of the Chance Scale by Other Personality Variables: Examining the Independence of Optimism (n = 307)
Variable R2 B SE B (3
Step 1 .28 Self-Esteem -.03 .07 -.03 Self-Efficacy -.15 .04 -.26** Neuroticism .19 .04 .31**
Step 2 .34 Self-Esteem .05 .07 .06 Self-Efficacy -.10 .04 -.18* Neuroticism .14 .04 .22* Optimism -.41 .08 -.33**
*p < .005. **p < .001.
69
Table 11. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Powerful Others Scale by Other Personality Variables: Examining the Independence of Optimism (n = 307)
Variable R2 B SEB 0
Step 1 .20 Self-Esteem -.10 .06 -.12 Self-Efficacy -.14 .03 -.26** Neuroticism .08 .04 .15
Step 2 .23 Self-Esteem -.06 .06 -.06 Self-Efficacy -.11 .03 -.20* Neuroticism .05 .04 .09 Optimism -.24 .08 -.22*
*p < .005. **p<.001.
Table 12. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of S elf-Esteem by Other Personality Variables: Examining the Independence of Optimism (n = 303)
Variable R2 B SEB /3
Step 1 .51 Self-Efficacy .09 .03 .15** Neuroticism -.37 .03 -.58*** Intemality .05 .05 .04 Chance .04 .06 .03 Powerful Others -.11 .06 -.10
Step 2 .53 Self-Efficacy .07 .03 .12* Neuroticism -.32 .03 -.50*** Intemality .00 .05 .00 Chance .08 .06 .08 Powerful Others -.08 .06 -.07 Optimism .30 .07 .24***
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
70
Table 13. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Generalized Self-Efficacy by Other Personality Variables: Examining the Independence of Optimism (n =
303)
Variable R2 B SEB 0
Step 1 .47 Neuroticism -.32 .06 Intemality .56 .09 .29*** Chance -.11 .10 -.07 Powerful Others -.33 .11 -.17** Self-Esteem .26 .10 .16**
Step 2 .48 Neuroticism -.29 .07 -.28*** Intemality .52 .09 .27*** Chance -.07 .10 -.04 Powerful Others -.31 .11 -.16** Self-Esteem .21 .10 .13* Optimism .24 .13 .11
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
The prediction that any relations between locus of control, self-esteem, and
Neuroticism can be explained by their overlap with self-efficacy and optimism was also
examined further using hierarchical regression. For each equation, self-efficacy and
optimism were entered in the first step; all other variables in question other than the
dependent variable were entered in the second step. For the prediction of Neuroticism,
significant additional contributions were made by Internality (/3 = .1 l,p < .05), Chance (/3 =
.16,p < .01) and most dramatically, self-esteem (/3 = -.45,p < .001); only Powerful Others
did not make a significant additional contribution. For the prediction of self-esteem, a
significant additional contribution was made by Neuroticism (/3 = -.50, < .01) but not by
any of the locus of control scales. For the prediction of Intemality, a significant additional
71
contribution was made by Neuroticism (/? =. 18,p < .05) but not by self-esteem. Likewise
for the prediction of Chance, a significant additional contribution was made by Neuroticism
(jS = .22, p < .01) but not by self-esteem. Neither Neuroticism nor self-esteem contributed to
the prediction of Powerful Others. The results of these regression analyses can be seen in
Tables 14-18.
Table 14. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Neuroticism by Other Personality Variables (n = 303)
Variable R2 B SEB 0
Step 1 A3
Self-Efficacy -.34 .05 -.35*** Optimism -.80 .11 -.40***
Step 2 .58 Self-Efficacy -.22 .05 -.23*** Optimism -.35 .11 _ 17** Intemality .20 .08 .11* Chance .27 .09 .16** Powerful Others -.07 .09 -.04 Self-Esteem -.70 .08 -.45***
*p < .05. **p < .005. ***p < .001.
Hypothesis 3
Correlational Analyses
Correlations among Extraversion, positive affect, generalized self-efficacy, and the
six Holland theme self-efficacies, both bivariate and with social desirability partialed out, are
displayed in Table 19. There appeared to be no effect of social desirability. As expected,
Extraversion related strongly to positive affect (r = .44, p < .001), generalized self-efficacy (r
72
Table 15. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Self-Esteem by Other Personality Variables (n = 303)
Variable R2 B SEB j3
Step 1 .39 Self-Efficacy .18 .03 .29** Optimism .54 .07 42**
Step 2 .53 Self-Efficacy .07 .03 .12* Optimism .30 .07 .24** Intemality .00 .05 .00 Chance .08 .06 .08 Powerful Others -.08 .06 -.07 Neuroticism -.32 .03 -.50**
*p < .05. **p < .001.
Table 16. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of the Intemality Scale by Other Personality Variables (n = 303)
Variable R2 B SEB 0
Step 1 .19 Self-Efficacy .15 .03 .30*** Optimism .21 .07 19**
Step 2 .21 Self-Efficacy .19 .03 .37*** Optimism .30 .08 .28*** Neuroticism .10 .04 .18* Self-Esteem -.03 .06 -.03
*p < .05. **p < .005. ***p < .001.
73
Table 17. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of the Chance Scale by Other Personality Variables (n = 307)
Variable R2 B SEB /?
Step 1 .32 Self-Efficacy -.14 .03 -.24** Optimism -.49 .07 -.40**
Step 2 .34 Self-Efficacy -.10 .04 -.18* Optimism -.41 .08 -.33** Neuroticism .14 .04 .22* Self-Esteem .05 .07 .06
*p < .005. **p<.001.
Table 18. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of the Powerful Others Scale by Other Personality Variables (n = 307)
Variable R2 B SEB 0
Step 1 .22 Self-Efficacy -.13 .03 -.25** Optimism -.31 .07 -.28**
Step 2 .23 Self-Efficacy -.11 .03 -.20* Optimism -.24 .08 -.22* Neuroticism .05 .04 .09 Self-Esteem -.05 .06 -.06
*p < .005. **p<.001.
74
Table 19. Bivariate and Partial Correlations Between Extraversion, Positive Affect, and Various Forms of Self-Efficacy
Extraversion Positive Affect Variable Bivariate Partial3 Bivariate Partial3 Partial15
Positive Affect .44 .45 — — —
Gen. Self-Efficacy .32 .33 .54 .54 .47 Realistic Confidence -.05 -.07 .17 .17 .23 Investigative Conf. -.03 -.03 .24 .24 .29 Artistic Confidence .10 .10 .20 .20 .18 Social Confidence .36 .35 .29 .28 .15 Enterprising Conf. .32 .32 .36 .37 .27 Conventional Conf. -.06 -.07 .19 .20 .26
Note. For bivariate correlations, /is range from 312 to 315. ^Controlling for social desirability (n = 304). ^Controlling for Extraversion (n = 309).
= .32, p < .001), Enterprising confidence (r = .32, p < .001), and Social confidence (r = .36, p
< .001), but not to the other four Holland theme self-efficacies. However, positive affect
related strongly to not only Extraversion (as predicted) but also to generalized self-efficacy (r
= .54, p < .001), and at least slightly to all six Holland themes, which was not predicted. To
investigate these relations further, partial correlations controlling for Extraversion were
calculated (also shown in Table 19). Indeed, these relations between positive affect and
various forms of self-efficacy remained (and in some cases strengthened) after partialing out
the effects of Extraversion. Of particular note was the correlation between positive affect
and generalized self-efficacy, which was reduced only to .47 after controlling for
Extraversion.
75
Multiple Regression Analyses
Multiple regression analyses were performed to examine the contributions of several
personality variables addressed in Hypotheses 2 and 3 in predicting the various forms of self-
efficacy. For each of the seven equations, variables that were not expected to relate to self-
efficacy, negative affect, Openness, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness, were entered in
the first step as background. The variables of interest, Extraversion, Neuroticism, locus of
control, self-esteem, positive affect, and optimism, were entered on the second step. For the
prediction of generalized self-efficacy, significant contributions were made by Openness (/? =
.20, p < .001) and Conscientiousness (|8 = .54, p < .001), which persisted after entering the
variables of interest (see Table 20). Additional significant contributions were made by
Neuroticism (/3 = -.22, p < .001), Intemality (/3 = .11, p < .001), Powerful Others (j8 = -.15, p
< .01), and positive affect (j8 = .14,/? < .01).
The significant contribution made by Openness to the prediction of Realistic
confidence (j8 = .22, p < .001) persisted in Step 2 as well (see Table 21). Additional
significant contributions were made only by Extraversion (/S = -.18, p < .01) and positive
affect (j3 = .22, p < .01), and the regression equation explained only 11% of the variance in
Realistic confidence. For the prediction of Investigative confidence, significant contributions
were again made by Openness (/3 = .23, p < .001) and Conscientiousness (/? = .30, p < .001),
which persisted after entering the variables of interest (see Table 22). Only Extraversion
made an additional significant contribution to the prediction of Investigative confidence (/3 =
-.15, p < .05). Similarly for the prediction of Artistic confidence, significant contributions
were made by Openness (/3 = .55, p < .001) and Conscientiousness (|8 = .15,/? < .01), which
76
Table 20. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Generalized Self-Efficacy by Other Personality Variables (n = 303)
Variable R2 B SEB j8
Step 1 .46 Openness .31 .07 .20** Agreeableness -.01 .06 -.01 Conscientiousness .71 .06 .54** Negative Affect -.35 .05 -.32**
Step 2 .64 Openness .21 .06 .14** Agreeableness -.04 .06 -.03 Conscientiousness .49 .06 .37** Negative Affect -.07 .05 -.07 Extraversion .05 .06 .03 Neuroticism • -.23 .06 -.22** Intemality .34 .08 .17** Chance .02 .09 .02 Powerful Others -.28 .09 -.15* Optimism .17 .11 .08 Positive Affect .16 .06 .14* Self-Esteem .04 .09 .02
*p < .005. **p<.001.
77
Table 21. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Realistic Confidence by Other Personality Variables (n = 303)
Variable R2 B SEB j3
Step 1 .06 Openness .32 .09 .22** Agreeableness -.08 .08 -.06 Conscientiousness .07 .08 .06 Negative Affect -.11 .06 -.11
Step 2 .11 Openness .29 .09 .20* Agreeableness .04 .08 .03 Conscientiousness -.04 .08 -.03 Negative Affect -.08 .08 -.07 Extraversion -.26 .09 -.18* Neuroticism .07 .09 .07 Intemality .06 .12 .04 Chance -.17 .13 -.11 Powerful Others .21 .13 .12 Optimism -.18 .16 -.09 Positive Affect .25 .08 .22* Self-Esteem .21 .13 .13
*p < .01. **p < .001.
78
Table 22. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Investigative Confidence by Other Personality Variables (n = 303)
Variable R2 B SEB 0
Step 1 .18 Openness .51 .08 .33** Agreeableness -.15 .08 -.11 Conscientiousness .40 .07 .30** Negative Affect -.11 .06 -.10
Step 2 .22 Openness .50 .09 .32** Agreeableness -.09 .08 -.07 Conscientiousness .32 .08 .24** Negative Affect .01 .08 .01 Extraversion -.22 .09 -.15* Neuroticism -.16 .09 -.16 Intemality .07 .11 .04 Chance -.01 .13 -.01 Powerful Others .12 .13 .07 Optimism .12 .16 .06 Positive Affect .14 .08 .12 Self-Esteem -.04 .13 -.03
*p < .05. **p < .001.
persisted after entering the variables of interest (see Table 23). Only positive affect made an
additional significant contribution to the prediction of Artistic confidence ((3 = .14, p< .05).
For the prediction of Social confidence, the contribution made by Openness (jS = .30,
p < .001) again persisted in Step 2 (see Table 24). Additional significant contributions were
made by Extraversion (jS = .26, p < .001) and optimism (/S = .21 ,p < .01). For the prediction
o f En te rp r i s ing conf idence , s ign i f i can t con t r ibu t ions were made by Openness ( /3 = .17 , p <
.01) and Agreeableness (/3 = -.11, p < .001), which persisted after entering the variables of
interest (see Table 25). Only Extraversion made an additional significant contribution to the
79
Table 23. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Artistic Confidence by Other Personality Variables (zz = 303)
Variable R2 B SEB /3
Step 1 .31 Openness .84 .07 .55*** Agreeableness .04 .07 .03 Conscientiousness .19 .07 .15** Negative Affect -.11 .06 -.10
Step 2 .33 Openness .81 .08 .53*** Agreeableness .05 .08 .04 Conscientiousness .15 .07 .12* Negative Affect .00 .07 .00 Extraversion .03 .08 .02 Neuroticism .09 .08 .09 Intemality -.06 .10 -.03 Chance -.09 .11 -.06 Powerful Others .13 .12 .07 Optimism .06 .15 .03 Positive Affect .16 .08 .14* Self-Esteem -.03 .12 -.02
*p < .05. **p < .005. ***p < .001.
80
Table 24. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Social Confidence by Other Personality Variables (n = 303)
Variable R2 B SEB /?
Step 1 .12 Openness .40 .07 .30*** Agreeableness .15 .07 .14* Conscientiousness .13 .07 .11 Negative Affect .01 .06 .01
Step 2 .25 Openness .34 .07 .25*** Agreeableness .05 .08 .04 Conscientiousness .06 .07 .05 Negative Affect .06 .06 .06 Extraversion .32 .08 .26*** Neuroticism .03 .08 .04 Intemality -.08 .10 -.05 Chance .14 .11 .10 Powerful Others -.14 .11 -.09 Optimism .38 .13 .21** Positive Affect .12 .07 .11 Self-Esteem -.09 .11 -.07
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
81
Table 25. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Enterprising Confidence by Other Personality Variables (n = 303)
Variable R2 B SE B 0
Step 1 .11 Openness .23 .08 .17* Agreeableness -.32 .07 -.27** Conscientiousness .28 .07 .24** Negative Affect -.10 .06 -.10
Step 2 .30 Openness .19 .07 .14* Agreeableness -.37 .07 -.31** Conscientiousness .11 .07 .10 Negative Affect .05 .06 .05 Extraversion .32 .08 .25** Neuroticism -.10 .08 -.11 Intemality .02 .10 .01 Chance -.14 .11 -.09 Powerful Others .21 .11 .13 Optimism .19 .13 .10 Positive Affect .13 .07 .12 Self-Esteem .12 .11 .08
*p < .01. **p < .001.
prediction of Enterprising confidence (/3 = .25, p < .001). For the prediction of Conventional
confidence, only the contribution made by Conscientiousness (j3 = .29, p < .001) persisted in
Step 2, and only Extraversion made an additional significant contribution (0 = -.18, < .01)
(see Table 26).
Hypothesis 4: Correlational Analyeses
Correlations were calculated to examine the relations between Neuroticism, positive
affect, negative affect, and self-esteem; these correlations were run both as bivariate
correlations and as partial correlations controlling for social desirability (see Table 27).
82
Table 26. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Conventional Confidence by Other Personality Variables (n = 303)
Variable R2 B SEB 0
Step 1 .09 Openness .09 .08 .06 Agreeableness -.24 .08 -.19* Conscientiousness .35 .07 .29** Negative Affect -.06 .06 -.05
Step 2 .15 Openness .06 .08 .04 Agreeableness -.15 .08 -.12 Conscientiousness .23 .08 .19* Negative Affect .05 .07 .05 Extraversion -.25 .09 -.18* Neuroticism .01 .09 .02 Intemality .13 .11 .07 Chance -.14 .12 -.09 Powerful Others .21 .13 .12 Optimism .16 .16 .08 Positive Affect .15 .08 .14 Self-Esteem .19 .13 .13
*p < .01. **p < .001.
Table 27. Intercorrelations Among Neuroticism, Positive and Negative Affect, and Self-Esteem
Variable N PA NA SE
Neuroticism Positive Affect Negative Affect Self-Esteem
-.44 .58 -.69
-.44
-.27 .45
.58 -.25
-.43
-.69 .45 -.43
Note. Numbers below the diagonal are bivariate correlations (ns range from 311 to 316). Numbers above the diagonal are partial correlations controlling for social desirability (n = 304). All correlations are significant atp< .001.
83
There was no evidence for any effect of social desirability, and all predictions were
supported. A substantial relation was found between Neuroticism and negative affect (r =
.58), self-esteem was related positively to positive affect (r = .45) and negatively to negative
affect (r = -.43), and a modest relation was found between positive and negative affect (r = -
.27). However, there was also a substantial and unexpected relationship between
Neuroticism and positive affect (r = -.44).
Hypothesis 5
Correlational Analyses
Correlations were calculated to examine emotional intelligence's relations to positive
affect, negative affect, and optimism. As predicted, emotional intelligence was found to
relate substantially to both positive affect (r = .55) and to optimism (r = .45). The predicted
positive relation between emotional intelligence and negative affect, however, was not
supported (r = -.19). All of these correlations were completely unchanged when controlling
for social desirability. Interestingly, when controlling for optimism the correlation between
emotional intelligence and positive affect was reduced only to .45, but when controlling for
positive affect the correlation between emotional intelligence and optimism was reduced to
.28.
Because emotional intelligence has been described as a type of intelligence (Mayer &
Salovey, 1993), correlations were calculated with GPA and ACT scores; although these are
not measures of intelligence per se, they are regarded as measures of academic success.
However, no significant relation was found with either GPA (r = .02, n — 301) or ACT score
(r = -.10, n = 271). The relationships between emotional intelligence and other variables in
84
this study were of interest in an exploratory capacity; these bivariate correlations are reported
in Table 28.
Multiple Regression Analyses
Regression analyses were performed to explore the contributions of various
personality variables in the prediction of emotional intelligence. Because little research has
been done with this construct, no predictions were made beyond the ones stated above; these
analyses were done purely for exploratory purposes. In the first equation, the Big Five
Table 28. Exploratory Correlations of Emotional Intelligence with All Other Variables
Variable r n p<
Neuroticism -.33 299 .001 Extraversion .46 299 .001 Openness .30 299 .001 Agreeableness .18 299 .005 Conscientiousness .29 299 .001 Intemality .38 295 .001 Chance -.31 297 .001 Powerful Others -.26 297 .001 Optimism .45 301 .001 Positive Affect .55 302 .001 Negative Affect -.19 302 .005 Self-Esteem .38 300 .001 Generalized Self-Efficacy .54 301 .001 Realistic Confidence .14 301 .05 Investigative Confidence .21 301 .001 Artistic Confidence .35 301 .001 Social Confidence .48 301 .001 Enterprising Confidence .39 301 .001 Conventional Confidence .18 301 .005 GPA .01 301 ns ACT Score -.10 271 ns
85
personality factors were entered in the first step and positive affect and optimism were
entered in the second step (see Table 29). Significant contributions were made by
Extraversion (/3 = .36, p < .001), Openness (/3 = .32, p < .001), and Conscientiousness (j8 =
.13, p < .01) which persisted after entering positive affect (/3 = .28, p < .001) and optimism ((3
— -22, p < .01).
In the second equation, the locus of control variables were entered in the first step and
positive affect and optimism were entered in the second step (see Table 30). Significant
contributions were made by Intemality (jS = .35, p < .001) and Powerful Others (fi = -.18,p <
.01) which persisted after entering positive affect (/3 = .41, p < .001) and optimism (/3 = .15, p
Table 29. Summary of Exploratory Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Emotional Intelligence by the Big Five Personahty Factors, Positive Affect, and Optimism (n = 299)
Variable R2 B SEB j8
Step 1 .39 Neuroticism -.31 .08 -.19** Extraversion .83 .11 .36** Openness .78 .11 .32** Agreeableness -.04 .10 -.02 Conscientiousness .46 .10 .22**
Step 2 .48 Neuroticism .01 .09 .01 Extraversion .53 .11 .23** Openness .63 .11 .26** Agreeableness .02 .10 .01 Conscientiousness .26 .10 .13* Positive Affect .54 .10 .28** Optimism .73 .18 .22**
*p<.01. **p<.001.
86
Table 30. Summary of Exploratory Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Emotional Intelligence by Locus of Control, Positive Affect, and Optimism (n = 295)
Variable R2 B SEB /3
Step 1 .22 Intemality 1.06 .16 .35*** Chance -.34 .18 -.12 Powerful Others -.54 .20 -.18**
Step 2 .41 Intemality .63 .15 .21*** Chance .00 .17 .00 Powerful Others -.37 .17 -.12* Positive Affect .77 .10 .41*** Optimism .50 .19 .15*
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
< .05). In the third equation, self-esteem and generalized self-efficacy were entered in the
first step and positive affect and optimism were entered in the second step (see Table 31).
Generalized self-efficacy made a significant contribution (/3 = .46, p < .001) that persisted
after entering positive affect (/3 = .34, p < .001) and optimism (J3 = .16, p < .01). In the fourth
equation, the six Holland theme self-efficacies were entered in the first step and generalized
self-efficacy, positive affect and optimism were entered in the second step (see Table 32).
Social confidence made a significant contribution ((3 = .36, p < .001) that persisted after
entering generalized self-efficacy (j3 = .25, p < .001), positive affect (j8 = .26, p < .001), and
optimism (J3 = .13, p < .01).
87
Table 31. Summary of Exploratory Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Emotional Intelligence by Self-Esteem, Self-Efficacy, Positive Affect, and Optimism (n = 300)
Variable R2 B SEB |S
Step 1 .31 Self-Esteem .41 .14 .16* Self-Efficacy .74 .09 .46**
Step 2 .42 Self-Esteem .03 .15 .01 Self-Efficacy .44 .09 .28** Positive Affect .65 .10 .34** Optimism .52 .19 .16*
*p < .01. **p < .001.
Hypothesis 6
Correlational Analyses
Correlations were run to test the prediction that GPA and ACT scores would be
related to the various forms of self-efficacy (see Table 33). Few substantial relations were
found; however, there was a notable relationship between ACT score and Investigative
confidence (r = .39, p < .001).
Because over half the sample were first-year students, there was concern that the
weak results for GPA were due in part to many students' GPAs including only two
semesters' grades; therefore, these analyses were repeated with first-year students excluded.
For this portion of the sample, only generalized self-efficacy correlated significantly with
GPA (r = .23,p < .01, n = 128).
88
Table 32. Summary of Exploratory Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Emotional Intelligence by Holland Theme Self-Efficacy, Generalized Self-Efficacy, Positive Affect, and Optimism (zz = 300)
Variable R2 B SEB jS
Step 1 .31 Realistic Confidence -.13 .11 -.08 Investigative Confidence .19 .10 .12 Artistic Confidence .14 .10 .09 Social Confidence .66 .10 .36** Enterprising Confidence .38 .11 .21* Conventional Confidence .04 .12 .02
Step 2 .51 Realistic Confidence -.09 .09 -.05 Investigative Confidence .00 .08 .00 Artistic Confidence .22 .08 .14* Social Confidence .46 .09 .25** Enterprising Confidence .06 .10 .03 Conventional Confidence .05 .10 .03 Positive Affect .49 .10 .26** Optimism .43 .16 .13* Generalized Self-Efficacy .40 .09 .25**
*p <.01. **/?<.001.
89
Table 33. Correlations Between GPA and ACT score and Various Forms of Self-Efficacy
GPA ACT Score Variable r 95% conf. r 95% conf.
Generalized Self-Efficacy .13 [.02, .24] .06 [-.06, .18] Realistic Confidence -.10 [-.20, .02] .18 [.07, .29] Investigative Confidence .14 [.02, .24] .39 [.28, .48] Artistic Confidence .00 [--11, .11] .07 [-.05, .18] Social Confidence .00 [-.11, .11] -.15 [-.26, -.03] Enterprising Confidence .01 [--10, .12] .11 [.00, .23] Conventional Confidence .00 [-.11,-11] .25 [.14, .36]
Note. For GPA, « = 314 except for correlation with generalized self-efficacy (n = 313). For ACT score, n = 282 except for correlation with generalized self-efficacy (n = 281).
Of exploratory interest were the relationships between GPA and ACT score and the
other variables in the study. GPA correlated significantly with Chance (r = -.20, p < 001),
optimism (r = .18,/? < .01), and negative affect (r = -.12, p < .05). ACT score correlated
significantly with Extraversion (r = -. 13, j? < .05) and Chance (r = -.19, p < .01). Because of
the modesty of these relationships, no further analyses were done.
Multiple Regression Analyses
Regression analyses were performed to test the relative predictive ability of the
Holland theme self-efficacies with regard to GPA and ACT score. For the prediction of
GPA, significant contributions were made by Investigative confidence (fi — .28,p < .001) and
Realistic confidence (j3 = -.24, p < .01). However, the regression equation accounted for only
6% of the variance in GPA. For the prediction of ACT score, significant contributions were
made by Investigative confidence ((3 = 39, p < .001) and Social confidence (J3 = -.22, p <
.01). These analyses are displayed in Tables 34 and 35.
90
Table 34. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of GPA by Holland Theme Self-Efficacy (n = 312)
Variable B SEB /3
Realistic Confidence -.02 .01 -.24* Investigative Confidence .02 .01 .28** Artistic Confidence .00 .01 .01 Social Confidence .00 .01 -.02 Enterprising Confidence .00 .01 .03 Conventional Confidence .00 .01 -.03
Note. R2 = .06. *p<.005. **p<.001.
Table 35. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Prediction of ACT Score by Holland Theme Self-Efficacy (n = 280)
Variable B SEB 0
Realistic Confidence -.03 .03 -.07 Investigative Confidence .17 .03 .39** Artistic Confidence .02 .03 .04 Social Confidence -.11 .03 -.22* Enterprising Confidence .03 .03 .06 Conventional Confidence .03 .04 .06
Note. R2 = .19.
* p < .005. * * p < .001.
91
DISCUSSION
This study examined the relations between a wariety of dispositional variables that
have been shown repeatedly to relate to one another, and also to effective human functioning.
The variables being studied were self-efficacy, Extrarversion, Neuroticism, positive and
negative affect, optimism, locus of control, self-esteem, and emotional intelligence. The
main objective of the current research was to investigate whether there is support for the
conceptualization of an underlying dimension of adaptability that would help explain the
relationships between these variables.
One way this was addressed was through factor analysis of the variables under
consideration, as well as the other three Big Five personality factors and six Holland theme
self-efficacies. Five factors were rotated; all of the variables conceptualized as central to
adaptability loaded on one of the first two factors. Ewidence for two factors rather than one
suggests that the variables do differ in important ways. However, the finding that all the
adaptability variables loaded on the first two factors and all the other variables (with the
exception of Enterprising confidence) loaded on the remaining three factors is compelling
evidence for the conceptualization of the underlying dimension of adaptability.
The first factor, Subjective Weil-Being, represents adaptive beliefs about oneself and
the world. Included in this factor is emotional stability, the tendency not to experience
negative emotions, a belief in one's worth as a person, and a belief that good outcomes will
occur and that they are not controlled by outside forces. The second factor, Agentic
Adaptability, reflects a sense of being effective and influential, and having the ability to
accomplish things and impact life events. Agentic Adaptability involves a confidence in
being able to be successful across a wide range of encEeavors, and the belief that one does, in
92
large part, have control over life events. It also involves the experience of positive emotions,
enjoyment in being around people, and the ability to effectively use one's emotional
experience in interactions with others.
These two factors may contribute in slightly different ways to adaptability; the first
seems to represent a positive belief system and self-concept, whereas the second reflects
action one takes in achieving adaptability. In addition, positive and negative affect have been
conceptualized as distinct and independent dimensions rather than two poles of a single
dimension; their loading on separate factors provides evidence for this theoretical
conceptualization. As would be expected, Extraversion loaded on the same factor as positive
affect and Neuroticism loaded on the same factor as negative affect.
Although examination of the underlying construct of adaptability was primary, the
results of the factor analysis concerning confidence for the six Holland themes were
interesting as well. Meta-analytic findings have demonstrated that Extraversion has robust
relationships with Enterprising and Social interest, and Openness has robust relationships
with Investigative and Artistic interest (Larson et al., 2001). Because interest for a particular
Holland theme is related to but distinct from confidence for that theme (Betz, Harmon, &
Borgen, 1996; Swanson, 1993), comparison of these two types of results is illuminating. In
the current research, Enterprising confidence loaded on the same factor as Extraversion; the
two were also shown to be related in other analyses (described below).
Social confidence, however, loaded on a factor with Artistic confidence and
Openness, although other results in the current study have demonstrated a relationship
between Social confidence and Extraversion. Artistic confidence loaded on the same factor
as Openness, and in regression analyses Openness was shown to be important in the
93
prediction of both Artistic confidence and Investigative confidence. Examining the
differences and similarities in how Holland theme interest and Holland theme confidence
relate to the Big Five factors would be a useful way of further exploring the distinction
between interest and self-efficacy.
A secondary objective of the current study was to shed light on some of the ongoing
controversies surrounding many of the individual variables involved and to contribute to the
clarification of their conceptualization. In pursuit of this goal, a number of complex and
detailed hypotheses were developed, based on the theoretical and empirical literature. The
first hypothesis focused on the relationship between generalized self-efficacy and confidence
for the six Holland themes, which is a form of domain-specific self-efficacy. It was expected
that these two forms of self-efficacy would be related to one another, based on Judge and
colleagues' (Judge et al., 1997; Judge, Locke et al., 1998) theoretical development of the
concept of generalized self-efficacy, and that an average of scores across domains would be
most closely related to generalized self-efficacy. The results of the current study, however,
indicate that some confidence domains are more closely related to generalized self-efficacy
than others (see Figure 7). This is important information to consider when thinking about the
implications of generalized self-efficacy for a variety of behaviors.
Specifically, confidence for the Enterprising and Investigative themes is more closely
related to generalized self-efficacy than is confidence for the other four Holland themes.
Statistically speaking, these two themes were the only ones that did not have weaker
relationships with generalized self-efficacy than the average of scores did. These results can
be interpreted in a couple of different ways. First of all, it could be the case that confidence
94
Realistic confidence
tvestigative confidence
Artistic confidence
>- Social confidence
Enterprising confidence
Conventional confidence
Sum of RIASEC confidence
Figure 7. Results for Hypothesis 1
in the areas of math, science, and business contributes to people having a stronger sense of
overall efficacy. In other words, people who feel confident in their abilities in these
particular domains may be more likely to have confidence in their abilities to succeed in life
in general. Another possibility is that the concept of generalized self-efficacy as measured in
this study may not reflect confidence for life events in general, but may be subtly more
heavily focused on confidence for pursuits in the areas of math, science, and business.
However, this seems unlikely as the items on the SES (Sherer et al., 1982) have no
contextual content.
The second hypothesis focused on the relationships among self-efficacy, locus of
control, self-esteem, optimism, and Neuroticism, variables that have been repeatedly found to
interrelate and have been combined in various studies (e.g., Judge, Locke et al., 1998; Major
et al., 1998; Wanberg, 1997). The connection between generalized self-efficacy and locus of
control is one that has been explicitly emphasized (e.g., Phillips & Gully, 1997) and that was
expected to be especially prominent in the current research. Indeed, the correlations of
95
generalized self-efficacy with the three locus of control scales were substantial (r = .41 for
Internality, r = -.45 for Chance, r = -.39 for Powerful Others). Furthermore, all three locus of
control scales were more strongly related to generalized self-efficacy than to any of the
Holland theme self-efficacies. This lends support for the conceptualization of generalized
self-efficacy and locus of control as sharing the common element of adaptability, which is
not necessarily associated with confidence for the six Holland themes.
The connection between generalized self-efficacy and self-esteem is one that has been
explored in depth as well (e.g., Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998). As predicted, the relationship
between these two variables was strong (r = .51), and significantly stronger than the
correlation of self-esteem to confidence for any of the Holland themes. This suggests that
self-esteem also shares this underlying element of adaptability. However, self-esteem did
exhibit a notably substantial relationship with Enterprising confidence (r = .30), suggesting
that people who are confident in their ability to succeed in business-related pursuits are more
likely to have higher estimations of their self-worth overall. Indeed, among the six Holland
themes, Enterprising confidence seems to be the one most closely related to several of the
broader traits under consideration. The implications of Enterprising confidence for
successful functioning in general should definitely be explored in greater detail.
As expected, optimism was found to have substantial relationships with self-efficacy,
locus of control, self-esteem, and Neuroticism. Much more remarkable, however, was the
convincing evidence in support of conceptualization of optimism as an independent and
unique construct. When partial correlations were calculated for optimism with each other
variable while controlling for the effects of all the remaining variables, the correlation
coefficients were reduced but remained significant, with the exception of the correlation
96
between optimism and generalized self-efficacy. This is a very rigorous test of the
independence of optimism, because any overlap in variance is removed. The only
relationship between optimism and another variable that can be explained by overlap with
other variables is the one between optimism and self-efficacy.
Unique relationships were not expected between locus of control, self-esteem, and
Neuroticism; specifically, it was predicted that any relationships between these variables
would be explainable by their overlap with self-efficacy and optimism. For the most part,
partial correlations and regression analyses bore out that prediction; however, the negative
relationship between Neuroticism and self-esteem remained remarkably strong. Specifically,
the bivariate correlation of r = -.69 was reduced only to r = -.48 when controlling for the
effect of self-efficacy and optimism. Hierarchical regression analyses demonstrated that
Internality and Chance added small but significant predictive power with regard to
Neuroticism as well. Therefore, there is convincing evidence that Neuroticism has a unique
relationship with self-esteem, and some evidence that Neuroticism has a unique relationship
with locus of control.
The third hypothesis dealt with Extraversion's relationships to positive affect,
negative affect, and self-efficacy. As predicted, the finding that Extraversion is substantially
related to positive affect but unrelated to negative affect was replicated (see Figure 8). This
provides support for the conceptualization of positive and negative affect as independent
dimensions. Also as predicted, Extraversion was related to generalized self-efficacy and
Enterprising and Social confidence, but not to confidence for the other Holland themes. This
demonstrates the specificity of confidence for the various Holland themes, because
97
[-.06, .10] *- Other Holland themes
Enterprising confidence
Social confidence
Figure 8. Results for Hypothesis 3
Extraversion is conceptually associated with confidence for Enterprising and Social
endeavors but not confidence in the other areas.
However, an unexpected finding was a robust relationship between positive affect and
generalized self-efficacy, which was reduced only to .47 when controlling for the effect of
Extraversion. Similarly, several of the Holland themes self-efficacies (including
Enterprising) exhibited relationships with positive affect that could not be explained by
overlap with Extraversion. These unique relationships between positive affect and self-
efficacy were unanticipated and warrant additional research. In addition, regression analyses
revealed that Openness and Conscientiousness, two of the big five personality factors that
were not a focus of this research, consistently made important contributions to the prediction
of the various forms of self-efficacy. These are relationships that could also be a fruitful
focus of further study.
98
The foci of the fourth hypothesis were the relationships among positive and negative
affect, Neuroticism, and self-esteem. As predicted, a modest negative relationship was found
between positive and negative affect (see Figure 9). This is in line with previous research
that has demonstrated positive and negative affect to be independent constructs that are
slightly negatively related (e.g., Berry & Hansen, 1996). Also as predicted, self-esteem
exhibited a substantial negative relationship with negative affect and a substantial positive
relationship with positive affect. Although past findings have been ambiguous, these results
fit closely with most conceptual characterizations of the nature of self-esteem as involving
both the presence of positive emotions and the absence of negative emotions (e.g., Brown &
Dutton, 1995; Judge et al., 1996).
Finally, the well-established relationship between negative affect and Neuroticism
was replicated, which is in line with theoretical formulations (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992)
and previous research (e.g., Berry & Hansen, 1996). However, contrary to the theory
underlying the structure of affect, a substantial negative relationship was found between
-.44
.58 -.27 Negative affect
Positive affect
Neuroticism
-.43 .45
Self-esteem
Figure 9. Results for Hypothesis 4
99
Neuroticism and positive affect. The absence of such a relationship has been used in
previous research as evidence of the independence of positive and negative affect (e.g.,
Watson et al., 1999); the current findings call into question this conceptualization. A
substantial body of literature has examined the relationships among positive and negative
affect, Extraversion, and Neuroticism. With the exception of this relationship between
Neuroticism and positive affect, the results of this study support the theoretical
underpinnings of the structure of affect.
Hypothesis Five tested the theoretical formulations of emotional intelligence with
regard to the experience of emotion, and also anticipated the replication of the previously
reported relationship between emotional intelligence and optimism (Schutte et al., 1998).
Based on the assertion that emotional intelligence would be associated with intense
experience of both positive and negative emotions (Mayer & Salovey, 1993), it was predicted
that emotional intelligence would relate positively to both positive and negative affect.
However, this was not borne out in the current study. Positive affect was found to relate
positively to emotional intelligence, but a slight negative relationship was found between
emotional intelligence and negative affect. Therefore, this research suggests that emotional
intelligence does not involve the experience of both positive and negative emotions, but
rather indicates positive affect but not negative affect, or even the absence of negative affect.
This interesting finding can be interpreted in two general ways. First, the relationship
between emotional intelligence and subjective experience of emotion may need to be
reevaluated. Clearly the findings of this study suggest that the experience of positive
emotions has a very different relationship to emotional intelligence than the experience of
negative emotions does. It appears that people who have high emotional intelligence do tend
100
to be higher on positive affect. However, it appears that negative affect is either less
common among people who have high emotional intelligence or that it is not related to
emotional intelligence at all. This is not in line with the current theoretical formulation of
emotional intelligence.
Second, the findings may reflect inadequacy in the measure used, or failure to capture
the construct emotional intelligence as it has been conceptualized by theorists. Emotional
intelligence has been described as a dynamic quality, involving complex processes of
interacting with others, interpreting environmental stimuli, and utilizing emotion in making
quick decisions about how to react to situations and solve problems (Salovey & Mayer,
1990). The complex nature of this concept may render it difficult to assess using a static
pencil and paper measure. In addition, Petrides and Fumham (2000) have recently criticized
the methods by which Schutte et al.'s (1998) measure was constructed and demonstrated that
the instrument is not unifactorial and cannot be measuring a general emotional intelligence
factor, as the authors purport.
The exploratory investigations into the relationships between emotional intelligence
and other variables yielded interesting and somewhat puzzling results as well. Specifically,
emotional intelligence was found to relate to every construct in the study, including ones that
were not a focus here, such as Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. In addition
to positive affect and optimism, emotional intelligence exhibited especially strong
relationships with Extraversion (r = .46), generalized self-efficacy (r = .54), and Social
confidence (r = .48) (see Figure 10). In the regression analyses Openness and Internality also
stood out as important predictors of emotional intelligence. Recent research using the
Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS; Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, in press) to
101
Generalized Self-Efficacy Positive Affect .54 .55
Emotional Intelligence Negative Affect Extraversion
.46 -.19
Optimism Social Confidence .48 .45
Figure 10. Results for Hypothesis 5
measure emotional intelligence has demonstrated a relationship with Extraversion and self-
esteem but not Neuroticism (Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000). These relationships seem
compelling and would be an interesting focus of further study. However, the finding in the
current research that emotional intelligence correlated significantly with literally every
construct in the study calls into question the meaningfulness of any given relationship.
Again the question is raised of whether there is a problem with the conceptualization of
emotional intelligence as a construct, or with the measure employed in the current research.
Finally, the prediction that emotional intelligence would be related to GPA and ACT
score, because of its conceptualization as related to but distinct from other forms of
intelligence (Mayer & Salovey, 1997), was not supported. GPA and ACT scores are not
measures of intelligence per se, but consistently correlate with traditional measures of
intelligence. Other recent research has also failed to find a relationship between emotional
intelligence and traditional forms of intelligence (Ciarrochi et al., 2000; Petrides & Fumham,
2000).
Certainly the area of emotional intelligence is one rich with possibilities for future
research. Petrides and Fumham (2000) have asserted that the existence of a general
102
emotional intelligence factor has yet to be convincingly demonstrated. The MEIS (Mayer et
al., in press) has been demonstrated to be a useful measure of emotional intelligence,
although some subscales appear to have mediocre reliability (Ciarrochi et al., 2000). The
Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997) has also been demonstrated as a
reliable and valid measure of emotional intelligence (Dawda & Hart, 2000). Re-examination
of the relationships between emotional intelligence and the other constructs of interest in the
current study using alternative measures of emotional intelligence would be quite
illuminating.
The sixth and final hypothesis focused on the relationship between self-efficacy and
academic success as measured by GPA and ACT score. Substantial research has found
support for a relationship between self-efficacy and academic performance (e.g., Lent et al.,
1987; Multon et al., 1991); however, the current study demonstrated very limited
relationships between these two domains (see Figure 11). ACT score was found to be
unrelated to generalized self-efficacy, but did have a substantial correlation with
Investigative confidence (r = .39, p < .001). Other modest but significant correlations were
with Conventional confidence (r = .25, p < .001), Realistic confidence (r = .18,/? < .01), and
.13 > GPA
ACT scores
Figure 11. Results for Hypothesis 6
103
Social confidence (r = -.15,/? < .05). Interestingly, Social confidence contributed
significantly (with a negative valence) to the prediction of ACT score in the multiple
regression analyses but Conventional and Realistic confidence did not.
Although quite modest, the strongest correlation for GPA was with Investigative
confidence as well (r — .14, p < .05); taken in conjunction with its relationship to ACT score,
it seems that there may be an important link between confidence in the Investigative area and
academic success. The post hoc speculation that the generally non-significant results for
GPA may be the result of over half of the sample being first-year students yielded mildly
interesting results; when first-year students were excluded, the correlation between GPA and
generalized self-efficacy rose to .23 (p < .01), suggesting the possibility of a modest
relationship between generalized self-efficacy and performance over the college career.
However, none of the correlations between GPA and Holland theme confidence were
significant when first-year students were excluded.
Overall, the results of this study support the conceptualization of a common element
of adaptability that underlies the many characteristics that have been demonstrated to
contribute to human functioning. The factor analysis suggests that adaptability may be
complex, and may involve two separate dimensions of Subjective Well-Being and Agentic
Adaptability, or a certain set of beliefs and an action orientation. The separation in the factor
analytic results of variables not expected to be related to adaptability provides compelling
evidence for its conceptualization. In addition, when examined individually, the variables of
interest in this study have strong relationships with one another that do not summarily exist
with other variables that are not expected to be fundamental to adaptability, such as
confidence for the six Holland themes. On the other hand, many individual relationship were
104
found among variables that could not be explained by overlap with other variables in the
study, suggesting that most of them may possess unique content that should not be
overlooked. Most notably optimism, whose independence as a construct has been questioned
(e.g., Judge et al., 1997), convincingly demonstrated a unique contribution.
One fruitful approach for future research would be to examine these characteristics
with respect to more general ways of operationalizing adaptability, such as positive mental
health over time or successful functioning in a variety of domains. The outcome measure in
this study, academic aptitude and performance, was far too narrow a dimension to reliably
capture an element of adaptability, even among college students for whom academic success
is generally thought to be important. Indeed, few significant relationships were demonstrated
between the many variables included in the study and academic success. Defining
adaptability and assessing it more directly could provide valuable insight into this issue.
In addition, potential gender differences in the many complex relationships identified
in this research should not be overlooked. Several of the variables included exhibited mean
gender differences; it is certainly possible that the relationships among variables could be
different for men and women as well. Such an investigation would contribute substantially
to the understanding of the individual variables as well as the conceptualization of
adaptability. Men and women may differ in terms of what variables contribute most
substantially to adaptability; this would be extremely valuable information.
Finally, examination of these traits in populations other than college students would
be illuminating as well. People in various demographic categories, such as children, working
adults, and retired individuals are dealing with vastly different life circumstances that they
must adapt to; the traits and characteristics examined here may differ greatly in terms of their
105
importance for adapting to a different set of situations in life. Furthermore, the sample used
in this study was largely Caucasian. Investigation of these relationships with people of other
ethnicities would be important as well, because cultures may differ in terms of the values
placed on these various traits and characteristics. As a result, some of these variables may
exhibit greater or lesser salience to adaptability depending on one's cultural environment.
106
APPENDIX: MEASURES
Self-Efficacy Scale—General Self-Efficacy Subscale (Sherer et al., 1982)
1. When I make plans, I am certain I can make them work. 2. One of my problems is that I cannot get down to work when I should. (R) 3. If I can't do a job the first time, I keep trying until I can. 4. When I set important goals for myself, I rarely achieve them. (R) 5. I give up on things before completing them. (R) 6. I avoid facing difficulties. (R) 7. If something looks too complicated, I will not even bother to try it. (R) 8. When I have something unpleasant to do, I stick to it until I finish it. 9. When I decide to do something, I go right to work on it. 10. When trying to learn something new, I soon give up if I am not initially successful. (R) 11. When unexpected problems occur, I don't handle them well. (R) 12.1 avoid trying to learn new things when they look too difficult for me. (R) 13. Failure just makes me try harder. 14.1 feel insecure about my ability to do things. (R) 15.1 am a self-reliant person. 16.1 give up easily. (R) 17.1 do not seem capable of dealing with most problems that come up in life. (R)
R = reverse scored
The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (Watson et al., 1988)
1. Interested (P) 11. Irritable (N) 2. Distressed (N) 12. Alert (P) 3. Excited (P) 13. Ashamed (N) 4. Upset (N) 14. Inspired (P) 5. Strong (P) 15. Nervous (N) 6. Guilty (N) 16. Determined (P) 7. Scared (N) 17. Attentive (P) 8. Hostile (N) 18. Jittery (N) 9. Enthusiastic (P) 19. Active (P) 10. Proud (P) 20. Afraid (N)
P = Positive Affect; N = Negative Affect
107
Internality, Powerful Others, and Chance Scales (Levenson, 1981)
1. Whether or not I get to be a leader depends mostly on my ability. (I) 2. To a great extent my life is controlled by accidental happenings. (C) 3. I feel like what happens in my life is mostly determined by powerful people. (P) 4. Whether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on how good a driver I am. (I) 5. When I make plans, I am almost certain to make them work. (I) 6. Often there is no chance of protecting my personal interests from bad luck happenings.
(C) 7. When I get what I want, it's usually because I'm lucky. (C) 8. Although I might have good ability, I will not be given leadership responsibility without
appealing to those in positions of power. (P) 9. How many friends I have depends on how nice a person I am. (I) 10.1 have often found that what is going to happen will happen, [regardless of what I do].
(C) 11. My life is chiefly controlled by powerful others. (P) 12. Whether or not I get into a car accident is mostly a matter of luck. (C) 13. People like myself have very little chance of protecting our personal interests when they
conflict with those of strong pressure groups. (P) 14. It's not always wise for me to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to be a
matter of good or bad fortune. (C) 15. Getting what I want requires pleasing those people above me. (P) 16. Whether or not I get to be a leader depends on whether I'm lucky enough to be in the
right place at the right time. (C) 17. If important people were to decide they didn't like me, I probably wouldn't make many
friends. (P) 18.1 can pretty much determine what will happen in my life. (I) 19.1 am usually able to protect my personal interests. (I) 20. Whether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on the other driver. (P) 21. When I get what I want, it's usually because I worked hard for it. (I) 22. In order to have my plans work, I make sure that they fit in with the desires of people
who have power over me. (P) 23. My life is determined by my own actions. (I) 24. It's chiefly a matter of fate whether or not I have a few friends or many friends. (C)
I = Internality; C = Chance; P = Powerful Others
108
Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965)
1. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. 2. At time I think I am no good at all. (R) 3. I feel that I have a number of good qualities. 4. I am able to do things as well as most other people. 5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of. (R) 6. I certainly feel useless at times. (R) 7. I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal basis with others. 8. I wish I could have more respect for myself. (R) 9. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. (R) 10.1 take a positive attitude toward myself.
R = reverse scored
Revised Life Orientation Test (Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994)
1. In uncertain times, I usually expect the best. 2. It's easy for me to relax. (Filler item) 3. If something can go wrong for me, it will. (R) 4. I'm always optimistic about my future. 5. I enjoy my friends a lot. (Filler item) 6. It's important for me to keep busy. (Filler item) 7. I hardly ever expect things to go my way. (R) 8. I don't get upset too easily. (Filler item) 9. I rarely count on good things happening to me. (R) 10. Overall, I expect more good things to happen to me than bad.
R = reverse scored
109
The Emotional Intelligence Scale (Schutte et al., 1998)
1. I know when to speak about my personal problems to others. 2. When I am faced with obstacles, I remember times I faced similar obstacles and
overcame them. 3. I expect that I will do well on most things I try. 4. Other people find it easy to confide in me. 5. I find it hard to understand the non-verbal messages of other people. (R) 6. Some of the major events in my life have led me to re-evaluate what is important and not
important. 7. When my mood changes, I see new possibilities. 8. Emotions are one of the things that make my life worth living. 9. I am aware of my emotions as I experience them. 10.1 expect good things to happen. 11.1 like to share my emotions with others. 12. When I experience a positive emotion, I know how to make it last. 13.1 arrange events others enjoy. 14.1 seek out activities that make me happy. 15.1 am aware of the non-verbal messages I send to others. 16.1 present myself in a way that makes a good impression on others. 17. When I am in a positive mood, solving problems is easy for me. 18. By looking at their facial expressions, I recognize the emotions people are experiencing. 19.1 know why my emotions change. 20. When I am in a positive mood, I am able to come up with new ideas. 21.1 have control over my emotions. 22.1 easily recognize my emotions as I experience them. 23.1 motivate myself by imagining a good outcome to tasks I take on. 24.1 compliment others when they have done something well. 25.1 am aware of the non-verbal messages other people send. 26. When another person tells me about an important event in his or her life, I almost feel as
though I have experienced this event myself. 27. When I feel a change in emotions, I tend to come up with new ideas. 28. When I am faced with a challenge, I give up because I believe I will fail. (R) 29.1 know what other people are feeling just by looking at them. 30.1 help other people feel better when they are down. 31.1 use good moods to help myself keep trying in the face of obstacles. 32.1 can tell how people are feeling by listening to the tone of their voice. 33. It is difficult for me to understand why people feel the way they do. (R)
R = reverse scored
110
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964)
1. Before voting I thoroughly investigate the qualifications of all the candidates. (T) 2. I never hesitate to go out of my to help someone in trouble. (T) 3. It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am not encouraged. (F) 4. I have never intensely disliked anyone. (T) 5. On occasion I have had doubts about my ability to succeed in life. (F) 6. I sometimes feel resentful when I don't get my way. (F) 7. I am always careful about my manner of dress. (T) 8. My table manners at home are as good as when I eat out in a restaurant. (T) 9. If I could get into a movie without paying and be sure I was not seen, I would probably
do it. (F) 10. On a few occasions, I have given up doing something because I thought too little of my
ability. (F) 11.1 like to gossip at times. (F) 12. There have been times when I felt like rebelling against people in authority even though I
knew they were right. (F) 13. No matter who I'm talking to, I'm always a good listener. (T) 14.1 can remember "playing sick" to get out of something. (F) 15. There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone. (F) 16. I'm always willing to admit it when I make a mistake. (T) 17.1 always try to practice what I preach. (T) 18.1 don't find it particularly difficult to get along with loud mouthed, obnoxious people. (T) 19.1 sometimes try to get even, rather than forgive and forget. (F) 20. When I don't know something I don't at all mind admitting it. (T) 21.1 am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable. (T) 22. At times I have really insisted on having things my own way. (F) 23. There have been occasions when I felt like smashing things. (F) 24.1 would never think of letting someone else be punished for my wrongdoings. (T) 25.1 never resent being asked to return a favor. (T) 26.1 have never been irked when people expressed ideas very different from my own. (T) 27.1 never make a long trip without checking the safely of my car. (T) 28. There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good fortune of others. (F) 29.1 have almost never felt the urge to tell someone off. (T) 30.1 am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me. (F) 31.1 have never felt that I was punished without cause. (T) 32.1 sometimes think when people have a misfortune they only got what they deserved. (F) 33.1 have never deliberately said something that hurt someone's feelings. (T)
T = items for which a "true" response should be given a point. F = items for which a "false" response should be given a point.
I l l
REFERENCES
Alden, L. (1986). Self-efficacy and causal attributions for social feedback. Journal of
Research in Personality. 20. 460-473.
Allik, J., & Realo, A. (1997). Emotional experience and its relation to the five-factor
model in Estonian. Journal of Personality. 65. 625-647.
Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. (1992). Modeling cognitive adaptation: A
longitudinal investigation of the impact of individual differences and coping on college
adjustment and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 63. 989-1003.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change.
Psychological Review. 84.191-215.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American
Psychologist. 37. 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1984). Recycling misconceptions of perceived self-efficacy. Cognitive
Therapy and Research. 8. 231-255.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American
Psychologist. 44. 1175-1184.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and
functioning. Educational Psychologist. 28. 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of personality, hi L. A. Pervin & O. P.
John (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 154-196). New York: Guilford
Press.
112
Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Technical manual.
Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology. 44(1). 1-26.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the
relationships between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology. 78(1). 111-118.
Bernard, L. C., Hutchison, S., Lavin, A., & Pennington, P. (1996). Ego-strength,
hardiness, self-esteem, optimism, and maladjustment: Health-related personality constructs
and the "Big Five" model of personality. Assessment. 3. 115-131.
Berry, D. S., & Hansen, J. S. (1996). Positive affect, negative affect, and social
interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 71. 796-809.
Betz, N. E., Borgen, F. H., & Harmon, L. (1996). Skills Confidence Inventory
applications and technical guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy
expectations to perceived career options in college women and men. Journal of Counseling
Psychology. 28. 399-410.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy
expectations to the selection of science-based college majors. Journal of Vocational
Behavior. 23. 329-345.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1986). Applications of self-efficacy theory to
understanding career choice behavior. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 4.279-289.
113
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1997). Applications of self-efficacy theory to the career
assessment of women. Journal of Career Assessment. 5. 383-402.
Betz, N. E., Harmon, L. W., & Borgen, F. H. (1996). The relationships of self-
efficacy for the Holland themes to gender, occupational group membership, and vocational
interests. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 43. 90-98.
Betz, N. E., & Klein, K. L. (1996). Relationships among measures of career self-
efficacy, generalized self-efficacy, and global self-esteem. Journal of Career Assessment 4.
285-298.
Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In J. P. Robinson, P. R.
Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological
attitudes (pp. 115-160). San Diego: Academic Press.
Borgen, F. H. (1999). New horizons in interest theory and measurement: Toward
expanding meaning. In M. L. Savickas & A. R. Spokane (Eds.), Vocational interests: Their
meaning, measurement, and use in counseling (pp. 383-411). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
Bradley, H. S., & Betz, N. E. (1999, August). Development and evaluation of a
measure of social self-efficacy expectations in college students. Paper presented at the 107th
annual convention of the APA, Boston.
Brown. J. D., & Dutton, K. A. (1995). The thrill of victory, the complexity of defeat:
Self-esteem and people's emotional reactions to success and failure. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 68. 712-722.
Campbell, N. K., & Hackett, G. (1986). The effects of mathematics task performance
on math self-efficacy and task interest. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 28. 149-162.
114
Campbell, J. D., & Lavallee, L. F. (1993). Who am I? The role of self-concept
confusion in understanding the behavior of people with low self-esteem. In R. F. Baumeister
(Ed.), Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard (pp. 3-20). New York: Plenum Press.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control
theory approach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1994). Optimism and health-related cognition: What
variables actually matter? Psychology and Health. 9.191-195.
Chartrand, J. M., Rose, M. L., Elliott, T. R., Marmarosh, C., & Caldwell, S. (1993).
Peeling back the onion: Personality, problem solving, and career decision-making style
correlates of career indecision. Journal of Career Assessment. 1. 66-82.
Ciarrochi, J. V., Chan, A. Y. C., & Caputi, P. (2000). A critical evaluation of the
emotional intelligence construct. Personality and Individual Differences. 28. 539-561.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO
PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory fNEO-FFD professional manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cozzarelli, C. (1993). Personality and self-efficacy as predictors of coping with
abortion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 65. 1224-1236.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative
dependence. New York: Wiley.
David, J. P., Green, P. J., Martin, R., & Suis, J. (1997). Differential roles of
Neuroticism, Extraversion, and event desirability for mood in daily life: An integrative model
115
of top-down and bottom-up influences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 73.
149-159.
Dawda, D. & Hart, S. D. (2000). Assessing emotional intelligence: Reliability and
validity of the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) in university students.
Personality and Individual Differences. 28. 797-812.
DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137
personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin. 124. 197-229.
Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1985). The independence of positive and negative
affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 47. 1105-1117.
Diener, E., Smith, H., & Fujita, F. (1995). The personality structure of affect. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology. 69. 130-141.
Digmart, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model.
Annual Review of Psychology. 41.417-440.
Donnay, D. A. C., & Borgen, F. H. (1996). Validity, structure, and content of the
1994 Strong Interest Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 43. 275-291.
Donnay, D. A. C., & Borgen, F. H. (1999). The incremental validity of vocational
self-efficacy: An examination of interest, self-efficacy, and occupation. Journal of
Counseling Psychology. 46. 432-447.
Eden, D., & Zuk, Y. (1995). Seasickness as a self-fulfilling prophecy: Raising self-
efficacy to boost performance at sea. Journal of Applied Psychology. 80. 628-635.
Feldman Barrett, L., & Russell, J. A. (1998). Independence and bipolarity in the
structure of current affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 74. 967-984.
116
Gist, M. E. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human
resource management. Academy of Management Review. 12,472-485.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its
determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review. 17. 183-211.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American
Psychologist. 48.26-34.
Green, D. P., Goldman, S. L., & Salovey, P. (1993). Measurement error masks
bipolarity in affect ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 64.1029-1041.
Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development
of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 18. 326-339.
Hackett, G., & Campbell, N. K. (1987). Task self-efficacy and task interest as a
function of performance on a gender-neutral task. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 30. 203-
215.
Harmon, L. W., Borgen, F. H., Berreth, J. M., King, J. C., Schauer, D., & Ward, C. C.
(1996). The Skills Confidence Inventory: A measure of self-efficacy. Journal of Career
Assessment. 4. 457-477.
Harmon, L. W., Hansen, J. C., Borgen, F. H., & Hammer, A. L. (1994). Strong
Interest Inventory Applications and Technical Guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Hart, B. A., Gilner, F. H., Handal, P. J., & Gfeller, J. D. (1998). The relationship
between perfectionism and self-efficacy. Personality and Individual Differences. 24. 109-
113.
117
Haugen, R., & Lund, T. (1998). Attributional style and its relation to other personality
dispositions. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 68. 537-549.
Holden, G. (1991). The relationship of self-efficacy appraisals to subsequent health
related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Social Work in Health Care. 16. 53-93.
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational
personalities and work environments (3rd Ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources, Inc.
Holland, J. L., Johnston, J. A., & Asama, N. F. (1994). More evidence for the
relationship between Holland's personality types and personality variables. Journal of Career
Assessment. 2. 331-340.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History,
measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of
personality theory and research (pp. 102-138). New York: Guilford Press.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The
mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology. 85. 237-249.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. (1998). The power of being positive: The
relation between positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance. 11. 167-
187.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job
satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior. 19. 151-188.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional
effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 83.17-34.
118
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial
coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84, 107-122.
Kenny, D. A. (1987). Statistics for the social sciences. Boston: Little, Brown and
Company.
Kernis, M. H. (1993). The roles of stability and level of self-esteem in psychological
functioning. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard (pp. 167-
182). New York: Plenum Press.
Larson, L. M. (1998). The social cognitive model of counselor training. The
Counseling Psychologist. 26. 219-273.
Larson, L. M., & Daniels, J. A. (1998). Review of the counseling self-efficacy
literature. The Counseling Psychologist. 26.179-218.
Larson, L. M., Rottinghaus, P. J., & Borgen, F. H. (2001). Meta-analyses of Big Six
Interests and Big Five Personality variables. Manuscript submitted for publication, Iowa
State University.
Lee, C., As Word, S. J., & Jamieson, L. F. (1993). The effects of Type A behavior
dimensions and optimism on coping strategy, health, and performance. Journal of
Organizational Behavior. 14.143-157.
Lee, C. & Bobko, P. (1994). Self-efficacy beliefs: Comparison of five measures.
Journal of Applied Psychology. 79. 364-369.
Lennings, C. J. (1994). An evaluation of a generalized self-efficacy scale. Personality
and Individual Differences. 16. 745-750.
119
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive
theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational
Behavior. 45. 79-123.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy
expectations to academic achievement and persistence. Journal of Counseling Psychology.
31, 356-363.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1986). Self-efficacy in the prediction of
academic performance and perceived career options. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 33.
265-269.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1987). Comparison of three theoretically
derived variables in predicting career and academic behavior: Self-efficacy, interest
congruence, and consequential thinking. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 34. 293-298.
Lent, R. W., & Hackett, G. (1987). Career self-efficacy: Empirical status and future
directions. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 30. 347-382.
Lent, R. W., Larkin, K. C., & Brown, S. D. (1989). Relation of self-efficacy to
inventoried vocational interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 34.279-288.
Lent, R. W., Lopez, F. G., & Beischke, K. J. (1991). Mathematics self-efficacy:
Sources and relation to science-based career choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 38.
424-430.
Levenson, H. (1974). Activism and powerful others: Distinctions within the concept
of internal-external control. Journal of Personality Assessment. 38. 377-383.
120
Levenson, H. (1981). Differentiating among Internality, powerful others, and chance.
In H. M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the locus of control construct fVol.l. pp. 15-63). New
York: Academic Press.
Lindley, L. D., & Borgen, F. H. (2000). Personal style scales of the Strong Interest
Inventory: Linking personality and interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 57, 22-41.
Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self-efficacy,
goals, and task strategies on task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 69. 241-251.
Maddux, J. E. (1995). Self-efficacy theory, hi J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy,
adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research and application (pp. 3-33). New York: Plenum
Press.
Magaletta, P. R., & Oliver, J. M. (1999). The hope construct, will, and ways: Their
relations with self-efficacy, optimism, and general well-being. Journal of Clinical
Psychology. 55. 539-551.
Major, B., Richards, C., Cooper, M. L., Cozzarelli, C., & Zubek, J. (1998). Personal
resilience, cognitive appraisals, and coping: An integrative model of adjustment to abortion.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 74. 735-752.
Martocchio, J. J., & Dulebohn, J. (1994). Performance feedback effects in training:
The role of perceived controllability. Personnel Psychology. 47. 357-373.
Martocchio, J. J., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Relationship between Conscientiousness and
learning in employee training: Mediating influences of self-deception and self-efficacy.
Journal of Applied Psychology. 82. 764-773.
Matsui, T., Matsui, K., & Ohnishi, R. (1990). Mechanisms underlying math self-
efficacy learning of college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 37.225-238.
121
Maurer, T. J., & Pierce, H. R. (1998). A comparison of Likert scale and traditional
measures of self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology. 82.324-329.
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (in press). Emotional intelligence meets
traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence.
Mayer, J. D., DiPaolo, M., & Salovey, P. (1990). Perceiving affective content in
ambiguous visual stimuli: A component of emotional intelligence. Journal of Personality
Assessment. 54. 772-781.
Mayer, J. D., & Geher, G. (1996). Emotional intelligence and the identification of
emotion. Intelligence. 22. 89-113.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intelligence.
Intelligence. 17. 433-442.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey &
J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational
implications (pp. 3-31). New York: BasicBooks.
McFatter, R. M. (1994). Interactions in predicting mood from Extraversion and
Neuroticism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 66. 570-578.
Melamed, T. (1995). Barriers to women's career successes: Human capital, career
choices, structural determinants, or simply sex discrimination. Applied Psychology: An
International Review. 44(41 295-314.
Meyer, G. J., & Shack, J. R. (1989). Structural convergence of mood and personality:
Evidence for old and new directions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 57. 691-
706.
122
Mihalko, S. L., McAuley, E., & Bane, S. M. (1996). Self-efficacy and affective
responses to acute exercise in middle-aged adults. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality. 11. 375-385.
Mitchell, T. R., Hopper, H., Daniels, D., George-Falvy, J., & James, L. R. (1994).
Predicting self-efficacy and performance during skill acquisition. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 79. 506-517.
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Strauss, J. P. (1994). Validity of observer ratings of
the Big Five personality factors. Journal of Applied Psychology. 19(2). 272-280.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs
to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 38.
30-38.
Myers, D. G., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science. 6. 10-19.
Parsons, E., & Betz, N. E. (1998). Test-retest reliability and validity studies of the
Skills Confidence Inventory. Journal of Career Assessment. 6. 1-12.
Peacock, E. J., & Wong, P. T. P. (1996). Anticipatory stress: The relation of locus of
control, optimism, and control appraisals to coping. Journal of Research in Personality. 30.
204-222.
Petrides, K. V., & Fumham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional
intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences. 29. 313-320.
Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for
achievement, and locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal-setting process. Journal of
Applied Psychology. 82. 792-802.
123
Phillips, S. D., & Imhoff, A. R. (1997). Women and career development: A decade
of research. Annual Review of Psychology. 48. 31-59.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs. 80 (Whole No. 609).
Rusting, C. L., & Larsen, R. J. (1997). Extraversion, Neuroticism, and susceptibility
to positive and negative affect: A test of two theoretical models. Personality and Individual
Differences. 22. 607-612.
Sadri, G., & Robertson, I. T. (1993). Self-efficacy and work-related behavior: A
review and meta-analysis. Applied Psychology: An International Review. 42.139-152.
Saks, A. M. (1995). Longitudinal field investigation of the moderating and mediating
effects of self-efficacy on the relationship between training and newcomer adjustment.
Journal of Applied Psychology. 80. 211-225.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination. Cognition
and Personality. 9. 185-211.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment
and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology. 4.219-247.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1987). Dispositional optimism and physical well-
being: The influence of generalized outcome expectancies on health. Journal of Personality.
55, 169-210.
124
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1992). Effects of optimism on psychological and
physical well-being: Theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognitive Therapy and
Research. 16. 201-228.
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism
from Neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A réévaluation of the
Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 67. 1063-1078.
Scheier, M. F., Matthews, EC A., Owens, J. F., Magovem, G. J., Lefebvre, R. C.,
Abbott, R. A., & Carver, C. S. (1989). Dispositional optimism and recovery from coronary
artery bypass surgery: The beneficial effects on physical and psychological well-being.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 57. 1024-1040.
Scheier, M. F., Weintraub, J. K., & Carver, C. S. (1986). Coping with stress:
Divergent strategies of optimists and pessimists. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 51. 1257-1264.
Schiaffino, K. M., & Revenson, T. A. (1992). The role of perceived self-efficacy,
perceived control, and causal attributions in adaptation to rheumatoid arthritis:
Distinguishing mediator from moderator effects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
18, 709-718.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C.
J., & Domheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional
intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences. 25. 167-177.
Schwarzer, R. (1994). Optimism, vulnerability, and self-beliefs as health-related
cognitions: A systematic overview. Psychology and Health. 9.161-180.
125
Schwarzer, R. (1999). Self-regulatory processes in the adoption and maintenance of
health behaviors: The role of optimism, goals, and threats. Journal of Health Psychology. 4.
115-127.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1991). Learned optimism. New York: Knoff.
Sherer, M., & Adams, C. H. (1983). Construct validation of the Self-efficacy Scale.
Psychological Reports. 53. 899-902.
Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers,
R. W. (1982). The Self-efficacy Scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports.
51, 663-671.
Sinha, B. K, & Watson, D. C. (1997). Psychosocial predictors of personality disorder
traits in a non-clinical sample. Personality and Individual Differences. 22. 527-537.
Slanger, E., & Rudestam, K. E. (1997). Motivation and disinhibition in high risk
sports: Sensation seeking and self-efficacy. Journal of Research in Personality. 31. 355-374.
Smith, T. W., Pope, M. K., Rhodewalt, F., & Poulton, J. L. (1989). Optimism,
Neuroticism, coping, and symptom reports: An alternative interpretation of the Life
Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 56. 540-548.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance:
A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 124. 240-261.
Stevens, C. K., & Gist, M. E. (1997). Effects of self-efficacy and goal-orientation
training on negotiation skill maintenance: What are the mechanisms? Personnel Psychology.
50, 955-978.
Swanson, J. L. (1993). Integrated assessment of vocational interests and self-rated
skills and abilities. Journal of Career Assessment. 1. 50-65.
126
Swanson, J. L., & Lease, S. H. (1990). Gender differences in self-ratings of abilities
and skills. Career Development Quarterly. 38.347-359.
Taylor, K. M., & Betz, N. E. (1983). Applications of self-efficacy theory to the
understanding and treatment of career indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 22. 63-81.
Thorns, P., Moore, K. S., & Scott, K. S. (1996). The relationship between self-
efficacy for participating in self-managed work groups and the big five personality
dimensions. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 17. 349-362.
Tipton, R. M., & Worthington, E. L. (1984). The measurement of generalized self-
efficacy: A study of construct validity. Journal of Personality Assessment. 48. 545-549.
Tokar, D. M., Fischer, A. R., & Subich, L. M. (1998). Personality and vocational
behavior: A selective review of the literature, 1993-1997. Journal of Vocational Behavior.
53, 115-153.
Tokar, D. M., & Subich, L. M. (1997). Relative contributions of congruence and
personality dimensions to job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 50. 482-491.
Tokar, D. M., & Swanson, J. L. (1995). Evaluation of the correspondence between
Holland's vocational personality typology and the five-factor model of personality. Journal
of Vocational Behavior. 46. 89-108.
Tokar, D. M., Vaux, A., & Swanson, J. L. (1995). Dimensions relating Holland's
vocational personality typology and the five-factor model. Journal of Career Assessment. 3.
57-74.
Tracey, T. J. G. (1997). The structure of interests and self-efficacy expectations: An
expanded examination of the spherical model of interests. Journal of Counseling Psychology.
44, 32-43.
127
Tuel, B. D., & Betz, N. E. (1998). Relationships of career self-efficacy expectations
to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Personal Style Scales. Measurement and
Evaluation in Counseling and Development 31. 150-163.
Wanberg, C. R. (1997). Antecedents and outcomes of coping behaviors among
unemployed and reemployed individuals. Journal of Applied Psychology. 82. 731-744.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Measurement and mismeasurement of mood:
Recurrent and emergent issues. Journal of Personality Assessment. 68. 267-296.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 54.1063-1070.
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood.
Psychological Bulletin. 98. 219-235.
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1999). Issues in the dimensional structure of affect—
Effects of descriptors, measurement error, and response formats: Comment on Russell and
Carroll (1999). Psychological Bulletin. 125. 601-610.
Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). The two general activation
systems of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological
evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 76. 820-838.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory
mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
56, 407-415.
128
Wood, R., Bandura, A. & Bailey, T. (1990). Mechanisms governing organizational
performance in complex decision-making environments. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes. 46.181-201.
Wood, R. E., & Locke, E. A. (1987). The relation of self-efficacy and grade goals to
academic performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 47. 1013-1024.
Wooten, W. (1991). The effects of self-efficacy on job acceptance behavior among
American college students. Journal of Employment Counseling. 28. 41-48.